Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01743/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01743-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNISONE STRATEGIC IP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 3:13-cv-1743-GPC-JMA

ORDER LIFTING STAY

v.

TRACELINK, INC., and DOES 1

through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

On April 2, 2014, thisCourt issued a stay pending ex parte reexamination of U.S.

Patent No. 6,996,538 (the “’538 patent”). (ECF No. 34.) On November 26, 2014,

Defendant Tracelink, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed a notice that the United States Patent and

Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) had issued a reexamination certificate for the ’538

patent. (ECF No. 42.) On December 18, 2014, Plaintiff Unisone Strategic IP, Inc.

(“Plaintiff”) filed a letter requesting that the Court schedule a Rule 16 conference.

(ECF No. 46.) On January 5, 2015, Defendant filed a status report stating that

Defendant is seeking covered business method (“CBM”) review of the ’538 patent

pursuant to § 18(a) of the America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat.

284, 329–31 (2011). (ECF No. 49.) In a conference call to chambers, the parties

expressed a difference of opinion as to whether the stay was still in effect.

The standard for a stay pending CBM review differs from the standard for a stay

pending ex parte reexamination. Compare Xerox Corp. v. 3Com Corp., 69 F. Supp. 2d

- 1 - 3:13-cv-1743-GPC-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-01743-GPC-LL Document 52 Filed 01/07/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

404, 407 (W.D.N.Y. 1999) (noting the three common law factors that apply to

reexamination stays) with VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 759 F.3d 1307,

1310 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (noting the four statutory factors that apply to CBM review

stays). While three of the factors overlap, the burden is still on the moving party to

show that a stay is appropriate. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433–34 (2009).

Moreover, stays pending ex parte reexamination are appealable only if the plaintiff is

put “effectively out of court,” whereas stays pending CBM review are always

appealable. Compare Spread Spectrum Screening LLC v. Eastman Kodak Co., 657

F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury

Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 10 (1983)) with AIA § 18(b)(2). In light of the differing

appellate standards and the fact that it is the moving party’s burden to show that a stay

is appropriate, the Court finds that the stay in this case has been lifted as the USPTO

has concluded its ex parte reexamination ofthe ’538 patent. If Defendant wishes to stay

proceedings pending CBM review, it should file the appropriate motion with this

Court.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The stay of proceedings entered by this Court on April 2, 2014, (see ECF

No. 34), is LIFTED; 

2. Pursuant to the Patent Local Rules, the parties are directed to contact

Magistrate Judge Adler’s chambersregarding scheduling anEarlyNeutral

Evaluation conference; and

3. As no ENE conference has yet taken place, Plaintiff’s request for a Rule

16 conference, (ECF No. 46), is DENIED.

DATED: January 7, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 2 - 3:13-cv-1743-GPC-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-01743-GPC-LL Document 52 Filed 01/07/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2