Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03177/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03177-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Research In Motion Corporation
Counter-claimant
Research in Motion Limited
Counter-claimant
Visto Corporation
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED,

Plaintiff,

 v.

VISTO CORPORATION,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

VISTO CORPORATION,

Counterclaimant,

 v.

RESEARCH IN MOTION LIMITED, and

RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION,

Counterdefendants.

 /

No. C-07-3177 MMC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO STAY

Before the Court is plaintiff/counterdefendant Reseach In Motion Limited and

counterdefendant Research In Motion Corporation’s (collectively, “RIM”) motion, filed

January 18, 2008, to stay proceedings related to defendant/counterclaimant Visto

Corporation’s (“Visto”) patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,225,231 and 7,228,383, pending

reexamination of said patents by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Visto has

filed opposition to the motion; RIM has filed a reply. The matter came on regularly for

Case 3:07-cv-03177-MMC Document 38 Filed 02/26/08 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

hearing on February 22, 2008. Marc H. Cohen and Philip T. Chen of Kirkland & Ellis LLP

appeared on behalf of RIM. Robert D. Becker of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP appeared

on behalf of Visto. Having considered the papers submitted and the arguments of counsel,

the Court rules as follows.

When determining whether to grant a stay pending reexamination of a patent, courts

consider three factors:

“(1) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set;

(2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case;

and (3) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical

disadvantage to the non-moving party.”

See Nanometrics, Inc. v. Nova Measuring Instruments, Ltd., 2007 WL 627920 at *2 (N.D.

Cal. 2007). 

In the instant case, the Court finds each of the factors weighs in favor of granting a

stay. In particular, with respect to the first factor, discovery is in its early stages, and,

although trial has been set, it is set for a date more than thirteen months in the future. 

Further, no briefing on claim construction or dispositive motions have been filed. With

respect to the second factor, the Court finds it probable, based on the statistical evidence

provided, that upon reexamination the United States Patent and Trademark Office will take

some action that results in canceling or altering one or more of the claims at issue and,

accordingly, a stay would likely narrow and clarify the issues for trial. 

Lastly, with respect to the third factor, the Court finds, that although RIM may derive

some benefit from prosecuting its own patent without simultaneously defending against

Visto’s claims, a stay would not present a clear tactical disadvantage to Visto. The sole

prejudice identified by Visto with respect to its own claims, specifically, the delay in having

such claims adjudicated in court, does not, by itself, constitute undue prejudice. See, e.g.,

id. at *3 (“Mere delay, without more . . ., does not demonstrate undue prejudice.”);

Photoflex Products, Inc. v. Circa 3 LLC, 2006 WL 1440363 at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (holding

“delay inherent to the reexamination process does not constitute, by itself, undue

prejudice”).

Case 3:07-cv-03177-MMC Document 38 Filed 02/26/08 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

1

 In light of such ruling, the Court adjusts the number of terms to be construed at the

Claim Construction Hearing on June 16, 2008. Rather than eight terms, as previously set

by the Court, (see Case Management and Docket Control Order filed October 9, 2007 at

2:2-3), the parties are limited to six claim terms.

3

For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s motion to stay is hereby GRANTED.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03177-MMC Document 38 Filed 02/26/08 Page 3 of 3