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

The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

Eon-Net, L.P., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Flagstar Bancorp, 

Defendant. 

 CASE NO. C05-2129 RSM 

DEFENDANT FLAGSTAR 

BANCORP’S OPPOSITION TO 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PURSUANT 

TO LOCAL RULE CR 7(d)(2)(A) TO 

STAY THE IMPOSITION OF 

SANCTIONS PENDING APPEAL 

NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: 

JUNE 11, 2010 

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 197 Filed 06/09/2010 Page 1 of 6
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 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

 On May 17, 2010, this Court reinstated “the Rule 11 sanctions awarded previously, 

in the amount of $141,984.70.” (Dkt. No. 195, at 11.) The Court also awarded Defendant 

Flagstar Bancorp (“Flagstar”) “attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $489,150.48 for 

expenses of litigating this case following remand, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff Eon-Net, L.P. (“Eon-Net”) now moves to “stay the imposition of sanctions” 

against Eon-Net's counsel Jean-Marc Zimmerman. (Dkt. No. 196.) Eon-Net’s motion 

should be denied. 

 As an initial matter, Eon-Net has inaccurately described the relief it is seeking here. 

What Eon-Net appears to be requesting is not a stay of the “imposition of sanctions”1

 but a 

stay of the execution or enforcement of the monetary judgment to be entered in Flagstar’s 

favor. Eon-Net cites no federal rules or standards relevant to its request for such relief and 

offers no valid justification or competent evidence to support a stay. Accordingly, EonNet and its counsel should be required to timely satisfy the judgment to be entered by this 

Court, and Flagstar should remain free to initiate any proceedings necessary to enforce the 

judgment. 

ARGUMENT

I. Eon-Net’s Analysis Is Premised on the Wrong Legal Standard. 

 In its pending motion, Eon-Net asserts that “the standard for evaluating stays 

pending appeal is similar to that employed by district courts in deciding whether to grant a 

preliminary injunction.” (Motion at 2 (quoting Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1435 

(9th Cir. 1983).) Eon-Net describes that standard as involving an analysis of “probability 

of success on the merits and degree of harm.” (Id.) But that standard is not applicable 

here. 

 

1

 A judgment “imposing sanctions” and awarding fees must be entered before EonNet can even pursue its appeal – thus, from a practical standpoint, the “imposition of 

sanctions” cannot be stayed. 

Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 197 Filed 06/09/2010 Page 2 of 6
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 

 The “test” cited by Eon-Net is employed with respect to motions made pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c) (“Injunction Pending Appeal”), which relates to 

staying enforcement of an interlocutory or final judgment granting, dissolving, or denying 

an injunction. Indeed, the two cases cited by Eon-Net in its Motion – Lopez v. Heckler

and Self-Realization Fellowship Church v. Ananda Church of Self-Realization, 59 F.3d 

902 (9th Cir. 1995) – address appeals from orders either granting or dissolving a 

preliminary injunction. Lopez, 713 F.2d at 1434; Self-Realization, 59 F.3d at 904. 

 But what Eon-Net seeks to stay here is the enforcement of a monetary judgment. 

Thus, neither Rule 62(c) nor the related standard cited by Eon-Net applies. Instead, 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 62(a) (providing for an automatic 14-day stay of 

execution or enforcement) and 62(d) (providing that a further stay of execution may be 

obtained “by supersedeas bond”) govern Eon-Net’s request.2

 See Peacock v. Thomas, 516 

U.S. 349, 360 n.8 (1996) (“The district court may only stay execution of the judgment 

pending the disposition of certain post-trial motions or appeal if the court provides for the 

security of the judgment creditor.”). 

It should be noted that Eon-Net is well aware that its recent Motion cites to the 

wrong legal standards. When Eon-Net brought a substantially similar motion to stay 

“imposition” of the Rule 11 sanctions originally ordered by this Court in 2006, Eon-Net 

 

2

 Eon-Net has not requested a “stay by supersedeas bond” pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 62(d). As described in Part II of this Opposition, any request for such a 

stay should be denied. Nevertheless, should a stay by supersedeas bond be sought by EonNet or considered by this Court, Flagstar requests an opportunity to be heard regarding the 

adequacy of any such bond, which must be in an amount sufficient to permit satisfaction of 

the judgment in full, together with costs, interest, and damages for delay. 11 Wright, 

Miller & Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2905 (2d ed. 1995) (“When the judgment 

is for the recovery of money not otherwise secured, the amount of the bond shall be fixed 

at such sum as will cover the whole amount of the judgment remaining unsatisfied, costs 

on the appeal, interest, and damages for delay.”); Am. Assoc. of Naturopathic Phys. v. 

Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that district court did not abuse its 

discretion by requiring a $30,000 bond to secure a stay of a $11,900 judgment). 

Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 197 Filed 06/09/2010 Page 3 of 6
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 

cited the same inapplicable standard (and relied on the same two cases – Lopez and SelfRealization). (Dkt. No. 91, at 4.) In ruling on Eon-Net’s previous motion, this Court 

agreed that “Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d) provides the means for a party to obtain a stay of a 

monetary judgment pending appeal” from a district court. (Dkt. No. 100, at 1.) Because 

Eon-Net knowingly failed to address the rules and standards that apply to its pending 

request for a stay, Eon-Net’s Motion should be denied. 

II. Eon-Net Offers No Valid Justification for a Stay of Enforcement of the 

Judgment.

Regardless of the legal standard to be applied, Eon-Net has offered no valid 

justification for its request to stay the execution or enforcement of the monetary judgment 

to be entered in this case. Eon-Net has neither demonstrated a likelihood of success on 

appeal nor offered any evidence to support the notion that Eon-Net or its counsel will be 

harmed in the absence of a stay. 

A. Eon-Net Has Not Demonstrated a Likelihood of Success on Appeal.

Eon-Net has not made any credible showing that “there is a strong likelihood that 

Eon-Net will succeed on the merits of its appeal.” (Motion at 2.) Instead, with respect to 

both the subject of claim construction and the issue of sanctions, Eon-Net only recycles the 

arguments that this Court has already rejected multiple times. 

For example, Eon-Net contends that it “is likely to succeed in having this Court’s 

Markman Order reversed on appeal because . . . the Federal Circuit previously found that 

Eon-Net’s counsel conducted a proper pre-suit investigation and that there was support in 

the specification of the Patents for Eon-Net’s claim construction.” (Motion at 4.) But, as 

this Court has noted at least twice, there is no basis for Eon-Net’s interpretation of the 

Federal Circuit opinion on which it continues to rely. (E.g., Dkt. No. 188, at 20-21 (stating 

that the Federal Circuit opinion “cannot be read as plaintiff contends it should”); Dkt. No. 

195, at 2-5 (stating that “plaintiff has taken these passages [of the Federal Circuit opinion] 

out of context and misrepresented them as to meaning and significance”).) 

Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 197 Filed 06/09/2010 Page 4 of 6
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

4 

As another example, Eon-Net contends that it is “likely to succeed” on appeal 

because “the specification and prosecution history of the three Patents support Eon-Net’ 

[sic] claim construction of an electronic document/file embodiment.” (Motion at 4.) EonNet’s position in this regard was the subject of extensive briefing and argument, but “EonNet’s sparse presentation of evidence” revealed that “there was no evidence beyond 

Dr. Medina’s self-serving opinion . . . to support Eon-Net’s overly broad interpretation of 

the claims.” (Dkt. No. 188, at 16.) 

Eon-Net has not demonstrated that it is likely to succeed with respect to any aspect 

of its appeal. Accordingly, Eon-Net’s request for a stay should be denied. 

B. Eon-Net Has Made No Showing of Irreparable Harm.

Eon-Net offers nothing to support its assertion that “Plaintiff’s counsel will suffer 

irreparable harm absent a stay.” (Motion at 5.) On this point, Eon-Net states only that: 

“Plaintiff’s counsel will likely endure financial hardships if the imposition of monetary 

sanctions is not stayed pending appeal.” (Id. (emphasis added).) Eon-Net offers no 

declaration or other evidence to support this conclusory statement. (See Dkt. No. 100, at 1 

(noting Eon-Net’s failure to offer evidence to support conclusory assertions regarding 

supposed harm that would result from satisfying judgment and denying Eon-Net’s prior 

motion to stay imposition of sanctions).) And Eon-Net does not contend that Eon-Net (as 

opposed to its counsel) will suffer any harm absent a stay. 

In light of the numerous settlements resulting from the baseless assertion of the 

patents at issue in this case, it is difficult to imagine that either Eon-Net or its counsel 

could present any evidence to support the notion that irreparable financial harm will occur 

absent a stay. Regardless, the wholesale failure to present any evidence on that point 

requires the denial of Eon-Net’s Motion. 

Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 197 Filed 06/09/2010 Page 5 of 6
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

5 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Flagstar respectfully requests that this Court deny EonNet’s Motion Pursuant to Local Rule CR 7(d)(2)(A) To Stay the Imposition of Sanctions 

Pending Appeal and direct the Clerk of Court to enter Judgment in favor of Flagstar. 

DATED: June 9, 2010 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

 By: /s/ Melissa J. Baily

 Charles K. Verhoeven, pro hac vice

Melissa J. Baily, pro hac vice

50 California Street, 22nd Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 875-6600 

Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 

charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 

melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com 

Jon Steiger, pro hac vice

865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 

Telephone: (213) 443-3000 

Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 

jonsteiger@quinnemanuel.com 

BYRNES & KELLER LLP

Bradley S. Keller, WSBA #10665 

Jofrey M. McWilliam, WSBA #28441 

Byrnes & Keller LLP

1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor 

Seattle, Washington 98104 

Telephone: (206) 622-2000 

Facsimile: (206) 622-2522 

bkeller@byrneskeller.com 

jmcwilliam@byrneskeller.com

Case 2:05-cv-02129-RSM Document 197 Filed 06/09/2010 Page 6 of 6