Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04016/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04016-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOSHIBA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR, INC, et al,

Defendants. /

No C-05-4016 VRW

Related to Case Nos

C-05-4100 VRW, C-05-4547 VRW,

C-04-4708 VRW, C-05-2914 VRW

ORDER

On November 17, 2005, defendants Hynix Semiconductor, Inc

and Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc (collectively “Hynix”) moved

to stay the present case. Doc #9. Hynix states that before

plaintiff Toshiba Corporation (“Toshiba”) initiated this case on

October 4, 2005, Toshiba filed a complaint on or about September

29, 2005, with the United States International Trade Commission

(“ITC”), under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended,

19 USC § 1337. Id at 1. Toshiba’s complaint requests the ITC to

investigate whether Hynix is infringing the same patents at issue

in this action. Id.

//

//

Case 3:05-cv-04016-VRW Document 16 Filed 02/21/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Based on 28 USC § 1659, Hynix asserts that the present

case should be stayed until the ITC concludes its action. That

provision provides:

In a civil action involving parties that are also

parties to a proceeding before the United States

International Trade Commission under section 337 of

the Tariff Act of 1930, at the request of a party to

the civil action that is also a respondent in the

proceeding before the Commission, the district court

shall stay, until the determination of the Commission

becomes final, proceedings in the civil action with

respect to any claim that involves the same issues

involved in the proceeding before the Commission, but

only if such request is made within --

(1) 30 days after the party is named as a respondent

in the proceeding before the Commission, or

(2) 30 days after the district court action is filed,

whichever is later.

See also Universal Tool & Stamping Co v Ventra Group, 46 USPQ 2D

1799, 1800 (ND Ind 1998) (“[I]t is clear that a stay must (the

statute says ‘shall’) be entered since there is no dispute that the

claims here and those before the United States International Trade

Commission involve the same issues.”).

Here, Hynix is a named respondent in an action before the

ITC. Doc #10, Ex A at 10. And both the ITC proceeding and the

present case involve infringement contentions concerning Toshiba’s

United States Patent Nos 5,150,178; 5,270,969 and 5,517,449. Id at

12; Complaint (Doc #1). Moreover, Toshiba does not oppose Hynix’s

request for a stay (Doc #12), and appeared to concede at a January

31, 2006, case management conference that 28 USC § 1659 mandates

granting a stay here.

//

//

//

Case 3:05-cv-04016-VRW Document 16 Filed 02/21/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

It is unclear, however, whether Hynix’s stay request is

timely. Hynix’s motion was filed on November 17, 2005, more than 

30 days after both the complaint in the present case and in the ITC

action were filed. Nonetheless, Hynix contends that it received

notice of the ITC action on November 4, 2005; if this is the

operative date on which Hynix was “named” as a respondent, then

Hynix’s stay request was timely.

In any event, it does not matter whether 28 USC § 1659

mandates a stay here because the court finds, under its inherent

authority, that a stay is appropriate. Rohan ex rel Gates v

Woodford, 334 F3d 803, 817 (9th Cir 2003). The power to stay

proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to

control the disposition of cases with economy of time and effort

for itself, for counsel and for litigants. Landis v N Am Co, 299

US 248, 254 (1936). Allowing the present case to proceed in

parallel to the earlier-filed ITC action creates the risk of

inconsistent results between the court and the agency. And because

the issues involved in both proceedings are substantially the same,

allowing the present case to go forward would waste time and effort

for both the court and the litigants. Moreover, the parties appear

to agree that a stay is appropriate here. Doc ##9, 12.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:05-cv-04016-VRW Document 16 Filed 02/21/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Hynix’s motion for a stay

and STAYS the present case until the parallel proceedings before

the ITC become final. The clerk is DIRECTED to terminate all

pending motions. The parties are instructed to notify the court in

writing by August 1, 2006, on the status of the ITC proceeding.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04016-VRW Document 16 Filed 02/21/06 Page 4 of 4