Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657-0/pdf.json

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MLC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03657-SI 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION TO STAY

Re: Dkt. No. 27

Defendant’s motion to stay this case pending inter partes review is scheduled for a hearing 

on February 6, 2015. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that this matter is 

appropriate for resolution without oral argument and hereby VACATES the hearing. For the 

reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion to stay.

BACKGROUND

MLC Intellectual Property, LLC (“MLC”) filed this lawsuit on August 12, 2014, accusing 

Micron Technology, Inc. (“Micron”) of infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,764,571 (“the ‘571 patent”). 

On October 15, 2014, Micron answered the complaint and asserted counterclaims for declaratory 

judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the ‘571 patent. At the initial case management 

conference on November 21, 2014, the Court set a further case management conference for March 

20, 2015, the tutorial hearing for June 10, 2015, and the claim construction hearing for June 17, 

2015. 

On December 24, 2014, Micron filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) at the U.S. 

Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), challenging the patentability of at least each asserted claim

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 31 Filed 02/03/15 Page 1 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of the ‘571 patent.1 The PTO accorded the IPR petition a filing date of December 24, 2014, and 

thus the PTO must issue a decision on whether to institute the IPR no later than June 24, 2015.2 

See 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b) (“The [patent owner's] preliminary response must be filed no later than 

three months after the date of a notice indicating that the request to institute an inter partes review 

has been granted a filing date.”); 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (requiring the PTO to determine whether to 

institute an inter partes review within three months after receiving a preliminary response, or if no 

preliminary response is filed, within three months after the last date on which such response may 

be filed). If the IPR is instituted, the PTO must issue its final written decision within one year of 

the institution date, with the possibility of a six-month extension only upon a showing of good 

cause. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(c). “A party to an [IPR] or a post-grant review who is dissatisfied 

with the final written decision . . . may appeal the Board’s decision only to the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.” 35 U.S.C. § 141(c). 

LEGAL STANDARD

“Courts have inherent power to manage their dockets and stay proceedings, including the 

authority to order a stay pending conclusion of a PTO reexamination.” Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 

F.2d 1422, 1426-27 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). In determining whether to grant a stay 

pending PTO review, courts consider three main factors: (1) whether discovery is complete and 

whether a trial date has been set; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of 

the case; and (3) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to 

the non-moving party. Telemac Corp. v. Teledigital, Inc., 450 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1111 (N.D. Cal. 

2006); accord Pi-Net Int’l, Inc. v. Focus Bus. Bank, No. C-12-4958-PSG, 2013 WL 4475940, at 

*3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2013). 

 

1 MLC has asserted infringement of claims 1, 9, 12, 30, 42, and 45, while Micron’s IPR petition 

challenges claims 1, 9, 10, 12, 30, 42, and 45.

2

See Micron Technology, Inc. v. MLC Intellectual Property, LLC, Case IPR2015-00504, Paper 

No. 6 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2015). Briefing was complete at the time the IPR filing date was 

assigned, so this information was not in the papers.

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 31 Filed 02/03/15 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Northern District of California

DISCUSSION

Micron moves to stay this action pending a decision to institute the IPR, and, if instituted, 

through final exhaustion of the IPR, including any appeals to the Federal Circuit. MLC partially 

opposes the motion. MCL agrees that if the PTO institutes the IPR, this action should be stayed 

until the PTO issues a final written decision on the IPR.3 However, MLC argues that the Court 

should not enter a stay prior to a decision by the PTO on whether to institute the IPR. MLC also 

argues that the stay should expire upon the issuance of the IPR final written decision, and not after 

all appeals have been exhausted as urged by Micron.

MLC argues that this case should not be stayed at this time, and that instead the parties 

should proceed with claim construction as currently scheduled. MLC argues that if the PTO 

proceeds with the IPR, this Court’s claim constructions will be relevant to the IPR because the 

PTO will use the same claim construction standards. 

The Court is not persuaded by MLC's arguments, and finds that a stay at this time is in the 

interest of judicial efficiency. As an initial matter, “it is not uncommon for [courts] to grant stays 

pending reexamination prior to the PTO deciding to reexamine the patent.” Pragmatus AV, No. 

11-CV-02168-EJD, 2011 WL 4802958, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2011). Should the PTO deny the 

IPR petition, the delay caused by the stay will have been relatively short. The claim construction 

hearing in this case is currently set for June 17, 2015. Even if the PTO uses the full statutory six 

months from petition filing date and issues its decision on institution on June 24, 2015, it is highly 

unlikely that the PTO would have the opportunity to consider this Court’s claim construction. In 

addition, although the IPR and district court claim construction standards could be similar because 

the ‘571 patent will expire on June 9, 2015,

4

the PTO “[is] not bound by the district court's claim 

 

3

 The parties agree that this litigation is at an early stage, that the IPR would simplify the issues 

for trial, and that MLC will not suffer undue prejudice pending a final written decision in the IPR, 

if instituted. Accordingly, the Court concludes that all three factors weigh in favor of a stay. 

4

See In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he Board's review of the claims of 

an expired patent is similar to that of a district court's review.”) (citations omitted); see also 

M.P.E.P. § 2258(G) (“In a reexamination proceeding involving claims of an expired patent, claim 

construction pursuant to the principle[s] set forth by the court in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 31 Filed 02/03/15 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Northern District of California

construction” and there is a risk that proceeding through claim construction in this case will result 

in competing claim constructions and wasted effort. In re Trans Texas Holdings Corp., 498 F.3d 

1290, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Facebook v. Software Rights Archive, IPR2013-00478, 

Paper No. 17, at *11 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2014) (“Although a district court’s interpretation of the 

claims of an expired patent is instructive in a proceeding before the Board, we are not bound by 

these constructions.”). 

MLC also requests that if an IPR is instituted and a stay is entered, the stay should lift upon

issuance of the IPR final written decision, not after the exhaustion of all appeals. Micron 

disagrees, asking that the stay remain in place through the exhaustion of any appeals to the Federal 

Circuit. 

The Court is concerned about the possibility of a lengthy stay in the event the IPR is 

instituted and an appeal with the Federal Circuit is filed. The Court finds that the more prudent 

course is to enter a stay now, and reevaluate the propriety of the stay at periodic intervals. When 

the PTO issues a decision regarding whether to institute the IPR, the parties shall file a joint letter 

informing the Court of the PTO's decision. If the PTO denies the IPR petition, the stay shall be 

lifted. If the PTO grants the IPR petition in part, either party may file a motion to lift the stay, and 

the Court will reevaluate whether to continue the stay in light of the PTO’s determinations. In the 

event the PTO grants the petition in full, the stay shall continue until the PTO issues a final 

decision, at which time the parties shall file a letter informing the Court of the PTO's decision and 

the parties' positions regarding the need for a further stay. Any concerns regarding the prematurity 

or duration of the stay are alleviated by the short time frame of the initial stay and the Court’s 

willingness to reevaluate the stay if IPR is not instituted for all of the asserted claims.

CONCLUSION

All three factors weigh in favor of staying this action pending IPR of the ‘571 patent. 

 

1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . . . should be applied since the expired claim[s] are not subject to 

amendment.”).

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 31 Filed 02/03/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Northern District of California

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS 

defendant’s motion to stay pending IPR. Dkt. No. 27.

The parties shall file a joint status report, advising as to the status of the IPR 

proceeding, every 90 days from the date of this order. In addition, the parties shall file a 

joint status report within seven days of the PTO issuing its decision on whether to institute 

the IPR challenging the patent-in-suit, informing the Court of the PTO’s decision. Because 

this action is stayed, the case management conference scheduled for March 20, 2015, is 

VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2015

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 31 Filed 02/03/15 Page 5 of 5