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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

* * *

INNOVATIO IP VENTURES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MEI-GSR HOLDINGS LLC dba GRAND

SIERRA RESORT AND CASINO,

Defendant.

 

)

) 

)

)

)

) 

) 

)

)

)

3:11-CV-00343-LRH-WGC

ORDER

Before the court is Defendant MEI-GSR Holdings LLC’s (“MEI”) Motion to Stay (#27 ). 1

Plaintiff Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC (“Innovatio”) filed an opposition (#29), and Grand Sierra

replied (#34).

Innovatio filed this action against MEI on May 13, 2011, alleging infringement of 17

Innovatio patents related to wireless local area networks (“WLANs”), commonly referred to as

“Wi-Fi.” MEI is a resort-casino that uses, but does not design, make or sell, the products accused

of infringement.

Rather than file suit against any manufacturer or supplier of the allegedly infringing Wi-Fi

products, Innovatio filed this action along with ten other actions in other states against users, such

as hotels, bakeries, cafes, and grocery stores. In response, on the same day Innovatio filed this

Refers to court’s docket entry number. 1
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

action, two suppliers of the allegedly infringing products, Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) and

Motorola Solutions, Inc. (“Motorola”), filed a declaratory relief action in the District of Delaware

for non-infringement and invalidity of the seventeen Innovatio patents, entitled Cisco Systems, Inc.

and Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, Case No. 1:11-cv-425 (D. Del.) (the

“Supplier Action”). Then, on September 15, 2011, Cisco and Motorola filed a motion with the

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer this action and five of the other Innovatio

actions to the District of Delaware and to consolidate those actions for coordinated pretrial

proceedings with the Supplier Action. See In re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, Patent Litigation,

M.D.L. No. 2303 (J.P.M.L.).

On September 27, 2011, MEI filed the instant motion to stay this matter pending resolution

of the Supplier Action in Delaware, or at least pending resolution of the MDL motion for transfer

and consolidation. MEI contends that a stay is appropriate pursuant to the customer suit doctrine

and in the interest of judicial economy. Innovatio opposes MEI’s request for a stay pending

resolution of the Supplier Action but does not address MEI’s alternative request for a stay pending

resolution of the MDL motion. During briefing of the instant motion, Cisco and Motorola’s MDL

motion was fully briefed and the MDL Panel scheduled a hearing for December 1, 2011; however,

the Panel has not yet issued its decision.

Given that a decision by the MDL Panel is forthcoming and may moot MEI’s pending

motion to stay, and that Innovatio has not opposed MEI’s request for a stay at least pending

resolution of the MDL motion for consolidation, the court finds that a limited stay is appropriate

pending the MDL Panel’s decision.

////

////

////

////

 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

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter is STAYED for 30 days pending a decision

by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation or further order of the court. Defendant’s Motion

to Stay (#27) shall remain pending.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 22nd day of December, 2011.

__________________________________

LARRY R. HICKS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 3