Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03643/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03643-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC 

and MCM PORTFOLIO LLC, 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

 v. 

CANON, INC. et al., 

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

No. C 14-3640 CW 

ORDER ON MOTIONS 

FOR STAY OF 

LITIGATION AND FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME 

(Docket No. 396) 

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC 

and MCM PORTFOLIO LLC, 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

 v. 

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, 

 Defendant. 

________________________________/ 

No. C 14-3643 CW 

(Docket Nos. 168 

and 170) 

Plaintiff Technology Properties Limited LLC (Technology 

Properties) and its counsel The Simon Law Firm, P.C. (Simon Law) 

filed a Motion for Stay of the Litigation Pending Substitution of 

Counsel for Plaintiff MCM Portfolio LLC (MCM). Docket No. 396, 

Motion for Stay.1 Together, Plaintiffs also filed a Motion for 

Extension of Time to Submit Proposal on Representative Products, 

which Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) opposes. Oral 

argument is vacated. The Court discusses each issue below. 

 1 Unless otherwise specified, all docket numbers refer to 

Case Number 14-3640. 

Case 4:14-cv-03643-CW Document 179 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

I. Motion for Stay Pending Substitution of Counsel 

In their motion, Technology Properties and Simon Law explain 

that Simon Law represents both Technology Properties and MCM. 

They state that, because MCM terminated its attorney/client 

relationship with Simon Law, Simon Law cannot continue to take any 

action on behalf of MCM. They also argue that, due to several 

approaching deadlines, the litigation must be stayed to allow 

substitute counsel to enter on behalf of MCM and to educate itself 

on the issues. However, MCM responds that MCM "has been and 

continues to be represented by Bunsow De Mory Smith & Allison LLP 

in this litigation as well as several other law firms with respect 

to a variety of matters." Docket No. 399, Opp. to Stay, at 2. 

Because MCM is represented, these arguments are unavailing. 

Technology Properties and Simon Law also state that "a 

dispute has arisen between [Technology Properties] and MCM that 

must be resolved by independent counsel and may require 

intervention of the Bankruptcy Court." Motion for Stay at 3. It 

is not clear what the nature of the dispute is, or how it would 

affect the litigation. In addition, it is not clear why Simon Law 

would require guidance from the Bankruptcy Court to continue 

representing Technology Properties. For these reasons, the Court 

DENIES the motion for stay (Docket No. 396).

II. Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Proposal on 

Representative Products 

Plaintiffs filed a motion for extension of time for 

Plaintiffs to submit a proposal on representative products. 

Docket No. 400. In Case Number 14-3640, the parties stipulated, 

and the Court ordered, to extend the deadline to agree on 

Case 4:14-cv-03643-CW Document 179 Filed 03/22/16 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 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 

representative products until the resolution of the motion for 

stay; the motion for extension in that case is moot, and the Court 

discusses new deadlines below. In Case Number 14-3643, HP has 

filed its proposed resolution and opposes the motion.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time 

(Case No. 14-3643, Docket No. 170). Within one week of the filing 

of this order, the Canon Defendants must file their proposal. 

Within two weeks of the filing of this order, Plaintiffs must file 

their proposal. The Court encourages the parties to continue 

working to find a mutually agreeable solution. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 22, 2016 

CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:14-cv-03643-CW Document 179 Filed 03/22/16 Page 3 of 3