Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02201/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02201-52/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOS ANGELES BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH

INSTITUTE AT HARBOR-UCLA MEDICAL

CENTER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DR. GEOFFREY WHITE,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-02201 JSW

ORDER STAYING CASE

The Court has considered the parties’ positions, as set forth in their respective case

management statements as to how this matter should proceed. In its Complaint, Los Angeles

Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center (“LA Biomed”) seeks “a

declaration that Dr. White conceived and/or reduced to practice one or more of his claimed

inventions while using REI’s laboratory and testing facilities and that REI has an ownership

interest in such inventions.” (See Docket No. 42 (LA Biomed Compl. ¶ 22.) 

The Court concludes that it will materially advance this litigation to have a final

determination on the proper construction of the claims of the patents that form the basis of the

contractual dispute in this case. Accordingly, the Court concludes that a stay of these

proceedings in favor of the proceedings in the related case, Edwards Lifesciences, LLC, et al. v.

Cook Incorporated, et al., 03-CV-3817-JSW, is warranted. See, e.g., Levya v. Certified Grocers

of Calif., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979).

Case 3:04-cv-02201-JSW Document 450 Filed 07/23/08 Page 1 of 2
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

The Court FURTHER ORDERS that the parties shall submit joint status reports every

180 days. In addition, in the event that either party concludes that additional discovery is

necessary in light of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, or that discovery is necessary in order to

preserve evidence for a future trial, or that circumstances have changed, they may file a motion

with the Court asking for the stay to be lifted either in full or in part. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-02201-JSW Document 450 Filed 07/23/08 Page 2 of 2