Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01278/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01278-4/pdf.json

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

---

1

13-cv-1278-GPC-LL

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,

v.

LIFE TECHNOLOGIES 

CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 

300, inclusive,

Defendant.

Case No.: 13-cv-1278-GPC-LL

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO STAY

[ECF. No. 144]

Defendant Life Technologies Corporation (“Life Tech”) filed a motion to stay the 

case on November 5, 2019. ECF No. 144. Plaintiff Unisone Strategic IP, Inc. 

(“Plaintiff” or “Unisone”) filed an amended opposition on November 26, 2019. ECF No. 

151. TraceLink filed a reply on December 10, 2019. ECF No. 152. The Court finds the 

motion suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 

7.1(d)(1). Upon review of the moving papers, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to 

stay. 

I. Background

Case 3:13-cv-01278-GPC-LL Document 153 Filed 12/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

13-cv-1278-GPC-LL

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

On July 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed its initial Complaint asserting infringement of U.S. 

Pat. No. 6,996,538 (“the ‘538 patent”) against Defendant. ECF No. 1. Defendant soon 

filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, ECF No. 10, which the Court granted on 

October 22, 2013. ECF No. 19. On November 4, 2013, TraceLink, Inc. (“TraceLink”), a 

defendant in a co-pending action before this Court, filed a request for ex parte 

reexamination of the ‘538 patent. See 3:13-CV-01743-GPC-LL. Shortly afterwards, 

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint alleging infringement of the same patent. ECF 

No. 21. The Court stayed this action on April 2, 2014, pending the reexamination of the 

patent. ECF No. 35. 

A reexamination certificate was subsequently issued on November 24, 2014, 

amending the ‘538 patent and allowing the claims over the asserted prior art. U.S. Ex 

Parte Reexamination Cert. No. US 6,996,538 C1. On December 5, 2014, Life Tech filed 

a Petition with the PTAB seeking CBM review of ’538 patent claims 52, 62, 67, 70-76, 

81, 83-85, and 96 (the “first CBM”). On April 8, 2015, the Court granted a motion to 

stay this action, pending the final outcome the first CBM. ECF No. 59. On December 

30, 2015, Life Tech filed a second petition with the PTAB requesting CBM patent review 

of the ’538 patent claims 1, 14, 19, 22-28, 32, 34-36, and 45 (the “second CBM”). In 

total, Life Tech requested CBM review of claims 1, 14, 19, 22-28, 32, 34-36, 52, 62, 67, 

70-76, 81, 83-85, and 96. See CBM2015-00037, Paper No. 1; CBM2016-00025, Paper 

No. 2. None of these challenged claims survived review and were thus declared invalid 

by the PTAB on June 20, 2019. 

On August 26, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a second amended 

complaint. ECF No. 123. On September 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed the currently operative 

second amended complaint, which asserts fifty-three dependent claims that were not at 

issue in the prior CBM reviews. ECF No. 125. Specifically, Plaintiff asserted 

Case 3:13-cv-01278-GPC-LL Document 153 Filed 12/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

13-cv-1278-GPC-LL

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

infringement of claims 4, 6, 8-12, 15-18, 21, 29-31, 39-40, 42-43, 46, 49, 57-58, 60, 63, 

66, 69, 77-78, 86, and 93-94. ECF No. 125 at ¶¶ 24, 53. 

On November 1, 2019, Life Tech filed two CBM petitions requesting that the PTO 

institute CBM review of all remaining dependent claims of the ’538 patent on the ground 

that the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See CBM2020-00001 (ECF 127, 

Ex. 1); CBM2020-00005. The PTAB will reach a decision on institution by May 8, 2020 

and, if instituted, reach a final decision no later than May 3, 2021. Life Tech alleges that 

a decision of unpatentability in the latest CBMs would effectively end this litigation. 

ECF No. 144-1 at 8. 

II. Legal Standard 

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the “AIA”) provides a “transitional 

program” to review CBM patents. AIA § 18. The AIA further grants district courts 

authority to stay proceedings, pending CBM review before the U.S. Patent and 

Trademark Office (the “USPTO”), upon the consideration of four factors: (A) whether a 

stay, or the denial thereof, will simplify the issues in question and streamline the trial; (B) 

whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set; (C) whether a stay, 

or the denial thereof, would unduly prejudice the nonmoving party or present a clear 

tactical advantage for the moving party; and (D) whether a stay, or the denial thereof, will 

reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court. Id. § 18(b)(1); 

VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 759 F.3d 1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 

III. Discussion

Plaintiff argues that the four factors weigh in favor of denying the motion to stay 

or, alternatively, continuing this motion until the PTAB decides to undertake review of 

the two latest CBMs. Defendant opposes.

A. Simplification

Case 3:13-cv-01278-GPC-LL Document 153 Filed 12/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

13-cv-1278-GPC-LL

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

The first factor considers whether a stay will simplify the issues. AIA § 

18(b)(1)(A). The two latest CBM petitions filed by Life Tech challenge all remaining 

claims. ECF No. 127-1 at 7. Plaintiff argues that this factor does not weigh in favor a 

stay because Life Tech is using the CBM petition as a delay tactic. ECF No. 132 at 14-

15. Life Tech counters that a stay would not present a tactical advantage to Life Tech 

and therefore was not the motivation behind seeking the stay, and further contends that

the current CBM reviews will substantially simplify or moot the present infringement 

claims, noting that all claims in the ’538 patent that were challenged in the earlier CBM 

petitions are no longer at issue in this litigation. The Court agrees. Plaintiff’s fifty-three 

new dependent claims asserted in its SAC were not at issue in the prior CBM reviews, 

and a CBM review of these remaining claims can simplify the issues. See Versata 

Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc., 771 F.3d 1368, 1371–73 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 

vacated on other grounds by 780 F.3d 1134, 2015 WL 981523 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 27, 2015).

If any dependent claims are invalidated based on a CBM review, those claims will not 

need to be litigated. 

Plaintiff further argues that it would be premature to grant a stay even before 

PTAB has made its decision on institution and that the Court should therefore defer 

ruling on the motion to stay, citing Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp., 2014 WL 3736514 

(E.D. Tex. July 29, 2014) and other cases. Life Tech counters that since the Federal 

Circuit has already confirmed that the ’538 patent qualifies for CBM review, the PTAB is 

highly likely to institute review of the remaining claims. 

There is a split on authority on the question of whether a motion to stay is 

premature if it is filed in district court after the CBM petition has been filed with the 

USPTO but before the petition has been instituted by the PTAB. Protegrity Corp. v. 

Epicor Software Corp., 67 F. Supp. 3d 555, 561 (D. Conn. 2014) (collecting cases and 

describing the split of authority). In VirtualAgility, the Federal Circuit stated that while 

Case 3:13-cv-01278-GPC-LL Document 153 Filed 12/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

13-cv-1278-GPC-LL

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

the case for a motion to stay is stronger after post-grant review has been instituted, a 

motion to stay could be granted either before or after institution, and ultimately that the 

VirtualAgility court “express[ed] no opinion on which is the better practice.” 759 F.3d at

1315-16. Therefore, filing a motion to stay before the institution “is not an automatic bar 

against granting the motion, but rather is one component that could weigh against the 

granting of the motion, in conjunction with the myriad of other factors.” Protegrity, 67 

F. Supp. 3d at 562–63. 

Here, prior CBM petitions with respect to the ’538 patent have already been 

granted on two separate occasions – both times resulting in simplification of issues in this 

instant litigation. Cf. Audatex N. Am. Inc. v. Mitchell Int’l Inc., 46 F. Supp. 3d 1019, 

1022 (S.D. Cal. 2014) (defendants’ reliance on general statistics about the rate of PTAB’s 

petition review was insufficient to establish a likelihood of review for the specific patent 

at issue in the instant action and therefore weighed against granting a stay). Ultimately, 

the legislative history of the AIA indicates that a “very heavy thumb” is placed “on the 

scale in favor of the stay.” Protegrity Corp. v. Epicor Software Corp., 67 F. Supp. 3d 

555, 560 (D. Conn. 2014) (citing 157 Cong. Rec. S1053–54 (daily ed. Mar. 1, 2011)). 

Considering this and the outcomes of the prior CBM reviews with respect to the ’538 

patent, the Court finds the PTAB’s remaining CBM reviews are likely to simplify the 

issues in this litigation and therefore weigh in favor of a stay.

B. Discovery and Trial Date

The second factor considers whether discovery is complete and a trial date has 

been set. AIA § 18(b)(1)(B). The case is still in the preliminary stages of litigation, with 

a significant amount of discovery yet to be completed. This factor strongly favors 

staying the proceeding.

Plaintiff argues that petitioner should be estopped from bringing duplicative 

proceedings on the AIA’s estoppel provision, which states: 

Case 3:13-cv-01278-GPC-LL Document 153 Filed 12/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

13-cv-1278-GPC-LL

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

The petitioner in a transitional proceeding that results in a final written decision 

under section 328(a) of title 35, United States Code, with respect to a claim in a 

covered business method patent, or the petitioner’s real party in interest, may not 

assert, either in a civil action arising in whole or in part under section 1338 of title 

28, United States Code, or in a proceeding before the International Trade 

Commission under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337), that the 

claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised during that transitional 

proceeding.

AIA § 18(a)(1)(D). Plaintiff argues that this provision prevents a petitioner from raising 

any invalidity arguments in a civil action that the petitioner had previously raised before 

the PTAB. Life Tech counters that Plaintiff misinterprets this provision, which in fact 

estops a petitioner from relitigating a particular claim on a particular ground for which 

PTAB had previously issued a final decision. The Court agrees with Life Tech. This 

estoppel provision does not apply to this instant action since Life Tech is challenging new 

dependent claims. Since Life Tech has not previously challenged the claims in that are 

challenged in the current CBM petitions, Life Tech is therefore not estopped from 

bringing these claims before the PTAB or before this Court.1 

C. Prejudice

The third factor is whether the nonmoving party would be unduly prejudiced or the 

moving party would gain a tactical advantage. AIA § 18(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff argues that 

since this case has been pending since 2013, Life Tech has used successive CBM 

petitions to delay the case to the prejudice of Plaintiff, and that TraceLink has used the 

same strategy. Plaintiff asserts that it has been “put in limbo for years because of Life 

[Tech]’s harassing, successive CBM petitions.” ECF No. 151 at 22. However, as 

Defendant correctly points out, the compressed time frame allotted by Congress for CBM 

 

1 TraceLink argues that none of the cases that Plaintiff cites challenges this understanding of AIA § 

18(b)(1)(C). ECF No. 133 at 7-8. The Court agrees.

Case 3:13-cv-01278-GPC-LL Document 153 Filed 12/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

13-cv-1278-GPC-LL

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

review lessens any risk of prejudice; Plaintiff may easily recover any money damages it 

is due if it ultimately prevails on its infringement claims; and, finally, the risk of 

prejudice to TraceLink – in terms of spending substantial sums for litigating claims that 

may ultimately be held invalid by any CBM review – outweighs any risk to Plaintiff. 

D. Litigation Burden

The fourth factor considers whether a stay would reduce the litigation burden. 

AIA § 18(b)(1)(D). Plaintiff contends that any conclusion on this factor would be 

premature since there is no guarantee that PTAB will grant review of the CBM petitions. 

Defendant argues this factor weighs in favor of the stay since if the petition is granted, 

then several claims will be invalidated and excluded from the litigation, thereby reducing 

the burden on the Court and parties. Defendant contends that if, in the alternative, the 

petitions are denied, then parties can continue with this litigation in six months with the 

exact same litigation burden. This factor weighs in favor of Defendant. Addressing the 

issue of whether or not the remaining dependent claims recite patent eligible subject 

matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 can reduce the litigation burden on this Court and the 

parties. See Ultramercial Inc. v. HULU, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 718 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 

(Mayer, J., concurring) (section 101 is a “threshold test” and addressing it “at the outset 

of litigation will have a number of salutary effects”).

IV. Conclusion

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 16, 2019

Case 3:13-cv-01278-GPC-LL Document 153 Filed 12/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7