Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_23-cv-01967/USCOURTS-azd-2_23-cv-01967-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Duration Media LLC
Counter Claimant
Rich Media Club LLC
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Before the Court is Plaintiff Rich Media Club LLC’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Unopposed 

Motion to Reinstate Case (Doc. 47), in which both Plaintiff and Defendant Duration Media 

LLC (“Defendant”) move to reinstate this case, set aside this Court’s dismissal order, and 

extend the stay on this case until December 10, 2024. (Doc. 47 at 1–2). The Court now 

rules as follows.

I. BACKGROUND

This case was initially filed by Plaintiff on September 19, 2023, alleging that 

Defendant had infringed Plaintiff’s patent, U.S. No. 11,741,482 (“the ’482 Patent”). (Doc. 

47 at 2; Doc. 1). Plaintiff had previously filed a case against Defendant in 2022 (“the 2022 

case”), alleging that Defendant had infringed another one of Plaintiff’s patents, U.S. No. 

11,443,329 (“the ’329 Patent”). (Doc. 47 at 2). See Rich Media Club LLC v. Duration 

Media LLC, No. 2:22-cv-02086-JJT (D. Ariz. 2022). Defendant sought inter partes review 

(“IPR”) of the ’329 Patent and moved to stay the 2022 case until the Patent Trial and 

Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued its final decision. (Doc. 47 at 2–3). The PTAB issued its 

Rich Media Club LLC, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Duration Media LLC, 

Defendant. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-23-01967-PHX-SPL

ORDER

Case 2:23-cv-01967-SPL Document 48 Filed 10/29/24 Page 1 of 4
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

decision on the ’329 Patent in August 2024, and in September 2024, the stay in the 2022 

case expired, and the case is now active with a pending motion to re-issue the stay. (Id. at 

3). See also Rich Media Club LLC, No. 2:22-cv-02086-JJT (Sept. 27, 2024) (Doc. 42).

In this case, discovery was proceeding when Defendant filed another petition for 

inter partes review, this time of the ’482 Patent. (Doc. 47 at 3). The parties jointly agreed 

to a stay on this case pending the PTAB’s decision, which the Court issued on June 11, 

2024. (Id.; Doc. 44). However, as part of the order issuing the stay, this Court also ordered 

the parties to file a motion to continue the stay by September 5, 2024, or the case would be 

dismissed without further notice to the parties. (Doc. 44 at 2). “Through inadvertence, 

including confusion with the timing of lifting of the stay in the 2022 Case, neither party 

approached the other party about filing a joint motion to continue the stay or any notice of 

the status of the second IPR as the stay order in this case required.” (Doc. 47 at 4). 

Therefore, this case was dismissed on September 26, 2024. (Doc. 45).

The parties now ask this Court to set aside the September 26, 2024 dismissal order 

(Doc. 45), reinstate the case, and issue a stay until December 10, 2024. (Doc. 47 at 4). The 

parties anticipate that the PTAB’s order on the ’482 Patent will issue no later than 

December 3, 2024. (Doc. 47 at 4). 

II. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 60(b) provides that “[o]n motion and just 

terms, the court may relieve a party of its legal representative from a final judgment, order, 

or proceeding” for reasons including “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect 

. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). Here, Plaintiff argues that the parties’ failure to file a motion 

to continue the stay “was essentially a clerical oversight and there was no culpable conduct 

on plaintiff’s behalf.” (Doc. 47 at 4). The “excusable neglect” standard of Rule 60(b) 

“covers cases of negligence, carelessness and inadvertent mistake.” Bateman v. U.S. Postal 

Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir. 2000). When determining whether neglect is 

excusable, a court looks to four main factors: “(1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing 

party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason 

Case 2:23-cv-01967-SPL Document 48 Filed 10/29/24 Page 2 of 4
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

for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” Id. at 1223–24. 

Here, the Court finds no prejudice to the opposing party, as the Plaintiff’s motion 

(Doc. 47) is unopposed. (Doc. 47 at 2). This factor weighs toward a finding of excusable 

neglect. The Court also finds that setting aside the dismissal and reinstating the case would 

not cause any delay, as the case would likely have remained stayed until December 2024, 

pending the PTAB’s decision on the ’482 Patent, had the parties filed the required motion 

to continue. (Doc. 47 at 4). As to the reason for the delay, the Court finds that there has 

been no willful misconduct by Plaintiff or Defendant, but rather that the failure to file a 

motion resulted from an inadvertent mistake. See Bateman, 231 F.3d at 1225 (noting that 

the party’s “errors resulted from negligence and carelessness, not from deviousness or 

willfulness,” which weighed toward granting his Rule 60(b) motion). It is understandable 

that the parties could accidentally miss a deadline in this case given their overlapping 

deadlines in the related 2022 case. Finally, this Court finds that Plaintiff is acting in good 

faith in bringing this motion, as “the parties have engaged in extensive, years-long litigation 

in multiple cases and multiple fora, and it was not Plaintiff’s intention to abandon this 

case.” (Doc. 47 at 4). Again, the Court has not identified any willful misconduct on behalf 

of Plaintiff or Defendant, which weighs toward granting the Rule 60(b) motion. The Court 

agrees that “dismissal of the case is too severe a sanction on Plaintiff for the single instance 

of failure to file a joint motion to extend the stay,” and the Court finds that there is good 

cause to reinstate the case. (Id.). 

Additionally, for the same reasons set forth in this Court’s June 11, 2024 Order 

granting the parties’ motion to stay pending inter partes review (Doc. 44), this Court finds 

it appropriate to stay the case until December 10, 2024 in anticipation of the PTAB issuing

its decision regarding the ’482 Patent.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Reinstate Case, Set Aside 

Dismissal Order and Extend Stay Until December 10, 2024 Based on Inadvertence (Doc. 

47) is granted. 

Case 2:23-cv-01967-SPL Document 48 Filed 10/29/24 Page 3 of 4
4

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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Order of Dismissal (Doc. 45) is hereby set 

aside, and the case is reinstated.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the action is stayed, pending the resolution of 

inter partes review by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, until December 10, 2024.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case shall be dismissed without further 

notice on December 10, 2024, unless prior thereto, a motion to continue the stay is filed 

or the Court is advised that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has completed its review

and the parties are ready to proceed with this case.

Dated this 28th day of October, 2024.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:23-cv-01967-SPL Document 48 Filed 10/29/24 Page 4 of 4