Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-03733/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-03733-21/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DROPLETS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

YAHOO! INC.,

Defendant.

DROPLETS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NORDSTROM, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-03733-JST 

ORDER CONTINUING STAY

Re: ECF No. 294

Case No. 12-cv-4049-JST

On September 13, 2013, the Court stayed these cases pending inter partes reexamination of 

U.S. Patent No. 7,502,838 (“the ’838 patent”). ECF No. 275.1 The Court has continued the stay 

several times, most recently on January 4, 2016. ECF No. 88. On April 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a 

Notice Regarding Reexamination Appeal, notifying “the Court that an order issued in the inter 

partes reexamination appeal for U.S. Patent No. 7,502,838. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board 

sustained the Examiner’s rejection of all 38 claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,502,838.” ECF No. 292. 

Plaintiff also noted that it “plans to appeal the decision.” Id. 

On April 12, 2016, the Court ordered the parties to show cause why these cases should not 

remain stayed. ECF No. 293. That same day, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause, 

stating: “To best conserve the resources of the parties and the Court, Droplets believes that the 

 

1 All ECF citations refer to the ECF docket in Droplets, Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 12-cv-3733-JST 

(filed Sept. 7, 2011).

Case 4:12-cv-03733-JST Document 295 Filed 04/21/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

continuance of the stay is warranted in this case.” ECF No. 294. Defendants did not respond to 

the order to show cause.

In light of Plaintiff’s response, the Court finds good cause to continue the stay in this case 

until October 21, 2016. In the event that a decision issues on Plaintiff’s appeal, Plaintiff is ordered 

to file a notice informing the Court of the decision within 7 days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 4:12-cv-03733-JST Document 295 Filed 04/21/16 Page 2 of 2