Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00844/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00844-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
InPower, LLC
Counter Claimant
Intermotive, Inc.
Counter Defendant

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 1 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

INTERMOTIVE, INC.,

NO. CIV. S-05-0844 FCD GGH

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

INPOWER, LLC,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on the parties’ joint motion

to stay proceedings pending the outcome of a reexamination

proceeding in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. For

the reasons set forth below,1 plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. 

The district court has the inherent authority to order a

stay pending the outcome of reexamination by the USPTO. Ethicon

v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The court must

weigh the competing interests presented by a specific set of

facts. Gladish v. Tyco Toys, 29 U.S.P.Q.2d 1718, 1719 (E.D. Cal.

Case 2:05-cv-00844-KJM-GGH Document 30 Filed 01/05/07 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

1993). In weighing the interests of the parties, the court may

consider: 1) whether the non-moving party will suffer prejudice;

2) whether there is a clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving party; 3) the stage in litigation, 4) whether discovery is

or will almost be completed; and 5) whether a trial date has been

set. ASCII Corp. v. STD Entm’t USA, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 1378,

1380 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (citing GPAC, Inc. v. DWW Enter., Inc., 144

F.R.D. 60, 66 (D. N.J. 1992)). “There is a liberal policy in

favor of granting motions to stay proceedings pending the outcome

of reexamination proceedings.” ASCII Corp., 844 F. Supp. at

1381. Reexamination by the USPTO may further the goal of

judicial economy by eliminating the need for discovery and trial

of certain issues, and by helping the court focus on pertinent

issues. Methode Elecs., Inc. v. Infineon Techs. Corp., 2000 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 20689, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 7, 2000).

In this case, there is no evidence that either party will

suffer prejudice as a result of this stay. Rather, both parties

join in this motion because they believe that “the advantages to

be gained by a stay of the present action pending the expedited

PTO reexamination procedure clearly outweigh any possible

disadvantage.” (Mem. in Supp. of Joint Mot. to Stay Proceedings,

filed Nov. 21, 2006, at 8). Likewise, there is no clear tactical

advantage to be gained. This action was filed on April 28, 2005,

and only limited substantive discovery has been conducted. The

PTO has issued an Order dated October 16, 2006, directing that

reexamination proceed. The PTO’s determination will either

eliminate the present action altogether or, at the very least, 

////

Case 2:05-cv-00844-KJM-GGH Document 30 Filed 01/05/07 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

limit the issues which the court will have to address in deciding

the claims brought by the parties. 

Therefore, the court finds that there is good cause to stay

the proceedings. Plaintiff and defendant’s joint motion to stay

proceedings in this case pending completion of the inter partes

reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,594,565 is GRANTED. All

current dates are hereby vacated. A status conference is set in

this matter for July 13, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. The parties shall

submit a joint status report to the court by July 6, 2007. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 5, 2007

Case 2:05-cv-00844-KJM-GGH Document 30 Filed 01/05/07 Page 3 of 3