Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00217/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00217-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO 

CONTINUE CMC AND STAY 

CASE NO.: 13-cv-00217-EMC 

FENWICK 

&

WEST LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

MOUNTAIN VIEW 

JEFFREY A. TINKER (PRO HAC VICE)

jtinker@winstead.com

Winstead PC 

500 Winstead Building 

2728 N. Harwood Street 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

JOSEPH A. GRECO (Cal. Bar No. 104476) 

jgreco@beckllp.com

KIMBERLY P. ZAPATA (Cal. Bar No. 138291) 

kzapata@beckllp.com 

Beck, Bismonte & Finley, LLP 

150 Almaden Boulevard, 10th Floor 

San Jose, CA 95113 

Telephone: 408.938.7900 

Facsimile: 408.938.0790 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and CounterclaimDefendant GEOTAG, INC. 

CHARLENE M. MORROW (CSB No. 

136411) 

cmorrow@fenwick.com 

HECTOR J. RIBERA (CSB No. 221511) 

hribera@fenwick.com 

BRIAN E. LAHTI (CSB No. 278951) 

blahti@fenwick.com 

FENWICK & WEST LLP 

Silicon Valley Center 

801 California Street 

Mountain View, CA 94041 

Telephone: 650.988.8500 

Facsimile: 650.938.5200 

Attorneys for Defendant and 

Counterclaimant 

ZOOSK, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

 This case presently is scheduled for a Case Management Conference on Thursday, April 

30, 2015. The Joint Case Management Conference Statement is due on April 23, 2015. The 

parties respectfully request that the Court continue the Case Management Conference until 

sometime after the completion of appellate review of the summary judgment order entered in the 

related case Microsoft Corp. and Google v. GeoTag, Inc., Case No. 1:11-cv-175 (RGA) (D. Del.) 

GEOTAG, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ZOOSK, INC., 

Defendant. 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. 

Case No.: 13-cv-00217-EMC

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND 

STAY OF CASE 

Current CMC Date: April 30, 2015 

Requested CMC Date: TBD

Case 3:13-cv-00217-EMC Document 224 Filed 04/28/15 Page 1 of 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO 

CONTINUE CMC AND STAY 

2 CASE NO.: 13-cv-00217-EMC 

FENWICK 

&

WEST LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

MOUNTAIN VIEW 

(“Delaware Action), currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit in the case entitled Microsoft v. 

GeoTag, Inc., Case No. 15-1140. 

1. In April 2014, the District of Delaware issued an order denying Google’s motions for 

summary judgment of laches and invalidity and granting Google’s motion for noninfringement, 

involving the same GeoTag patent involved in this case. The public version of the Court’s 

Memorandum Opinion is Dkt. No. 477, filed April 22, 2014. 

2. On October 6, 2014, this Court entered the Stipulation and Proposed Order to Continue 

Case Management Conference and Stay of Case (Dkt. No. 219), ordering the case management 

conference continued until April 30, 2015, and the case stayed until then, so that the Court and 

the parties could know the outcome of the appellate review of the summary judgment order 

entered in the Delaware Action. 

3. Final judgment in the Delaware Action was entered on October 7, 2014 (Dkt. No. 521) 

after the Delaware court granted a stipulation of dismissal as to Microsoft on October 1, 2014 

(Dkt. No. 518). GeoTag thereafter appealed the judgment to the Federal Circuit, Case No. 15-

1140 (entitled Microsoft Corp. v. GeoTag, Inc.) on November 6, 2014 (Dkt. No. 522). GeoTag 

has filed its opening brief in the Federal Circuit. Google’s opposition is due on June 19, 2015. 

No hearing date has been set. 

4. The parties in this case believe that it makes sense for the parties and the Court to know 

the outcome of the appellate adjudication of the summary judgments order in the Delaware 

Action before proceeding with this case because the Federal Circuit’s ruling will likely be 

instructive on issues posed in this action and may even be dispositive of this action. Further, a 

stay of proceedings until the Federal Circuit rules on GeoTag’s appeal will promote judicial 

economy by likely bringing finality and certainty to issues regarding claim construction and 

infringement. Many of the same claim terms that are proposed for construction in this action 

were construed in the Delaware Action. The Federal Circuit’s ruling on those constructions will 

therefore directly impact this action. Additionally, the claims terms that are the basis for those 

summary judgment orders (“dynamic replication” and “geographical areas”) are also a basis for 

Zoosk’s non-infringement defense in this action. 

Case 3:13-cv-00217-EMC Document 224 Filed 04/28/15 Page 2 of 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO 

CONTINUE CMC AND STAY 

3 CASE NO.: 13-cv-00217-EMC 

FENWICK 

&

WEST LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

MOUNTAIN VIEW 

In the alternative, if the Court does not stay this action pending appeal, it could cost both 

the Court and the parties substantial resources. The parties would likely complete claim 

construction, fact discovery, expert reports, and dispositive motions before a ruling from the 

Federal Circuit. These exercises could be for naught depending on the Federal Circuit’s ruling. 

As such, in the context of concurrent patent infringement lawsuits involving the same patents, 

courts frequently stay all proceedings following an appeal of one of the related cases to the 

Federal Circuit. See e.g., Phonometrics, Inc. v. Economy Inns of America, 349 F.3d 1356, 1360 

(Fed. Cir. 2003) (acknowledging that the “district court twice stayed the present actions pending 

our decisions in Northern Telecom and Choice Hotels, respectively”); Smithkline Beecham Corp. 

v. Apotex Corp., 2004 WL 1615307, *7 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (staying consolidated action against nonApotex defendants pending review of ruling from Apotex case); Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC v. 

Trading Tech. Int’l, Inc., 2009 WL 3055381 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (staying case because “it makes little 

sense to proceed further on the merits of the underlying patent infringement dispute” until the 

Federal Circuit rules on claim construction issues in other actions that “may affect the direction of 

this case”). 

Accordingly, the parties to this action hereby respectfully request that the Court continue 

the Case Management Conference currently scheduled to take place on April 30, 2015 until 

sometime after the completion of the appellate review of the summary judgment orders entered in 

related case Microsoft Corp. and Google v. GeoTag, Inc., Case No. 1:11-cv-175 (RGA) (D. Del.) 

and Federal Circuit Case No. 15-1140 (entitled Microsoft Corp. v. GeoTag, Inc.), or to a future 

date convenient to the Court, and to continue the stay of this case until that continued Case 

Management Conference. 

SO STIPULATED. 

Case 3:13-cv-00217-EMC Document 224 Filed 04/28/15 Page 3 of 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO 

CONTINUE CMC AND STAY 

4 CASE NO.: 13-cv-00217-EMC 

FENWICK 

&

WEST LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

MOUNTAIN VIEW 

Dated: April 23, 2015 

BECK, BISMONTE & FINLEY, LLP

By: /s/ Joseph A. Greco

Joseph A. Greco 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and CounterclaimDefendant 

GeoTag, Inc. 

FENWICK & WEST LLP 

By: /s/ Brian E. Lahti

Brian E. Lahti 

Attorneys for Defendant and 

Counterclaimant 

Zoosk, Inc. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: __________________ _____________________________ 

 The Honorable Edward M. Chen 

 United States District Judge 

The CMC is reset for 

7/30/2015 at 10:30 a.m. An 

updated joint CMC statement shall 

be filed by 7/23/2015. 4/28/15

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

AS MODIFIED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:13-cv-00217-EMC Document 224 Filed 04/28/15 Page 4 of 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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO 

CONTINUE CMC AND STAY 

5 CASE NO.: 13-cv-00217-EMC 

FENWICK 

&

WEST LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

MOUNTAIN VIEW 

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3)

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), regarding signatures, I attest that the concurrence in the 

filing of this document has been obtained from its signatories. 

Dated: April 23, 2015 

By: /s/ Joseph A. Greco

Joseph A. Greco 

Attorney for Plaintiff and CounterclaimDefendant GeoTag, Inc. 

Case 3:13-cv-00217-EMC Document 224 Filed 04/28/15 Page 5 of 5