Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00304/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00304-0/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

1

 Metabowerke, a German corporation, is named as a defendant and may wish to

assert the affirmative defenses of improper venue and lack of personal jurisdiction.

Metabowerke, however, has not been served and is not yet a party to the case.

1 08CV304 BTM (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENS ERIK SORENSEN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08CV304 BTM (CAB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

vs. STAY

METABO CORPORATION, ET. AL,

Defendant.

The Court has reviewed the Defendant Metabo Corporation’s motion to stay pending

reexamination of the ‘184 patent and concludes that a partial stay is appropriate in this case.

Although Defendant Metabo has asserted improper venue as an affirmative defense,

it has indicated in its reply brief that it does not intend to challenge venue.1

 As set forth in

the Court’s order granting partial stay in Sorenson v. Star Asia, 08cv307, the Court will not

stay resolution of threshold procedural questions of jurisdiction and venue. However, in this

case, such an exception to a stay will not be necessary if Metabo waives its right to pursue

its affirmative defense of venue. Defendant Metabo may file an amended answer which

excludes its improper venue defense by July 21, 2008. If Defendant does not amend its

answer by that time, the parties may engage in venue related discovery only pursuant to an

expedited schedule to be issued by the magistrate judge and Defendant shall file a motion

to dismiss for improper venue on or before September 15, 2008. Defendant shall contact

chambers the day before filing to obtain a hearing date. 

Case 3:08-cv-00304-BTM-CAB Document 26 Filed 07/08/08 Page 1 of 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

2 08CV304 BTM (CAB)

The Court grants a stay as to the remainder of the litigation for the reasons stated in

the Court’s order granting stay in Sorensen v. Black and Decker, 06cv1572, Docket No. 243

and on the record at the February 25, 2008 status conference in Sorensen v. Helen of Troy,

06cv2278. The Court concludes that a reasonable stay is appropriate in this case because

the litigation is in its early stages, Plaintiff has not established undue prejudice, and the

reexamination will simplify issues for the Court and save expense for the parties. See, e.g.,

Xerox Corp. v. 3Com Corp., 69 F. Supp. 2d 404, 406 (W.D.N.Y. 1999). Contrary to the

Plaintiff’s arguments, the Court finds that litigation of Defendant’s affirmative defenses other

than improper venue should be stayed because they may involve determinations on the

merits of the case and will involve the parties in unnecessary expense at this stage of the

litigation. 

If it appears that the reexamination will not be effected within a reasonable time,

Plaintiff may move to vacate the stay. Defendants are advised to identify and submit any

relevant prior art that is not already being considered by the United States Patent Office as

soon as possible to facilitate the completion of the reexamination process within a reasonable

time period. Additionally, any party may apply to the Court for an exception to the stay if it

has specific, valid reasons to believe that it needs to obtain discovery in order to preserve

evidence that will otherwise be unavailable after the stay. Defendant is ordered to file a notice

informing the Court of the PTO’s decision on the pending application for reexamination within

10 days of receipt of such decision. 

For the reasons set forth above, the Court orders a partial stay of this case. All other

pending motions in this case are DENIED as premature. Plaintiff may renew these motions

after the stay has been lifted. The motion to stay is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 8, 2008

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00304-BTM-CAB Document 26 Filed 07/08/08 Page 2 of 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

3 08CV304 BTM (CAB)

Case 3:08-cv-00304-BTM-CAB Document 26 Filed 07/08/08 Page 3 of 3