IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

NAVBLAZER, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

APPLE INC., 

Defendant. 

 

Case No. 6:20-cv-00085-ADA 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO STAY PENDING 

RESOLUTION OF ITS MOTION TO TRANSFER 

Case 6:20-cv-00085-ADA Document 25 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 8
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................1

II. THIS CASE SHOULD BE STAYED PENDING A RULING ON APPLE’S MOTION 

TO TRANSFER ...................................................................................................................1

A. The Court Has Inherent Authority To Stay This Case .............................................1

B. All Relevant Factors Favor a Stay Pending a Decision on Transfer ........................2

1. Factor One: A Stay Will Not Prejudice NavBlazer .....................................2

2. Factor Two: Apple Will Suffer Hardship Absent a Stay .............................2

3. Factor Three: A Stay Will Conserve Judicial Resources .............................3

III. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................3

Case 6:20-cv-00085-ADA Document 25 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 8
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases

In re Beebe, 

56 F.3d 1384, 1995 WL 337666 (5th Cir. 1995) .........................................................................1 

In re Google Inc., 

No. 2015-138, 2015 WL 5294800 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2015) ...................................................1, 3 

In re Horseshoe Entm’t, 

337 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2003) .......................................................................................................2 

In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 

497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................2 

Landis v. N. Am. Co., 

299 U.S. 248 (1936) .....................................................................................................................1 

McKnight v. Blanchard, 

667 F.2d 477 (5th Cir. 1982) .......................................................................................................1 

Sparling v. Doyle, 

No. EP-13-CV-00323-DCG, 2014 WL 12489985 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2014) ............................3 

Transmatic, Inc. v. Gulton Indus., Inc., 

180 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................................2 

Underwater Devices Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 

717 F.2d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ...................................................................................................2 

Yeti Coolers, LLC v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 

1:17-cv-342, 2018 WL 2122868 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2018) .........................................................2 

Case 6:20-cv-00085-ADA Document 25 Filed 07/15/20 Page 3 of 8
1 

Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) respectfully moves for a stay pending a decision on its 

Motion to Transfer (Dkt. No. 24). 

I. BACKGROUND 

On July 15, 2020, Apple filed a Motion asking this Court to transfer this case to the 

Northern District of California. (Dkt. No. 24.) Briefing on Apple’s motion is expected to take at 

least until August 5, 2020. See Order Governing Proceedings – Patent Case § 5 (Dkt. No. 21). 

This case is at a very early stage. No Case Management Conference has occurred, nor have 

any proceedings, substantive or otherwise, been held before this Court. Apple and NavBlazer 

conferred in good faith on this motion during a telephone conference on July 10. NavBlazer 

opposes Apple’s motion to stay this case pending resolution of Apple’s transfer motion. 

II. THIS CASE SHOULD BE STAYED PENDING A RULING ON APPLE’S MOTION 

TO TRANSFER 

A. The Court Has Inherent Authority To Stay This Case 

“[T]he power to stay proceedings” is “incidental to a district court’s inherent power ‘to 

control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 

counsel, and for litigants.’” In re Beebe, 56 F.3d 1384, 1995 WL 337666, at *2 (5th Cir. 1995) 

(quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)); see also McKnight v. Blanchard, 667 

F.2d 477, 479 (5th Cir. 1982) (explaining the district court’s “general discretionary power to stay 

proceedings before it in the control of its docket and in the interests of justice”). 

The Federal Circuit has “stressed the importance of addressing motions to transfer at the 

outset of litigation” to “prevent the waste of time, energy, and money and to protect litigants, 

witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” In re Google Inc., No. 

2015-138, 2015 WL 5294800, at *1 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2015) (quotations omitted). Likewise, the 

Fifth Circuit has counseled that district courts should make timely filed transfer motions a “top 

Case 6:20-cv-00085-ADA Document 25 Filed 07/15/20 Page 4 of 8
2 

priority” before commencing substantive work on a case. In re Horseshoe Entm’t, 337 F.3d 429, 

433 (5th Cir. 2003). 

B. All Relevant Factors Favor a Stay Pending a Decision on Transfer 

Courts in this District usually consider three factors to determine whether a stay is 

warranted: (1) potential prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) the hardship and inequity the 

moving party would suffer if the action is not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources saved by 

avoiding duplicative litigation. Yeti Coolers, LLC v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 1:17-cv-342, 2018 

WL 2122868, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2018). Here, all three factors favor staying this case. 

1. Factor One: A Stay Will Not Prejudice NavBlazer 

NavBlazer will not suffer any prejudice from staying this case. Apple’s proposed stay is 

limited to the time involved in the Court’s consideration of Apple’s Motion to Transfer. NavBlazer 

does not compete with Apple in the market, and thus will not suffer any prejudice from a short 

stay. To the extent NavBlazer contends that it will suffer any economic disadvantage from a stay, 

it has a simple remedy if ultimately successful on the merits in the form of prejudgment interest. 

Underwater Devices Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 717 F.2d 1380, 1389 (Fed. Cir. 1983), 

overruled on other grounds by In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also 

Transmatic, Inc. v. Gulton Indus., Inc., 180 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Moreover, 

NavBlazer has not yet invested significant resources litigating in this forum, as it has not taken or 

requested any discovery or filed any motions, and no proceeding has taken place thus far. Thus, 

NavBlazer cannot contend that a stay would prejudice any investments of time or resources it has 

already made in this case. 

2. Factor Two: Apple Will Suffer Hardship Absent a Stay 

On the other hand, Apple will suffer hardship if a stay is not granted: being unnecessarily 

“forced to expend resources litigating substantive matters in an inconvenient venue while a motion 

Case 6:20-cv-00085-ADA Document 25 Filed 07/15/20 Page 5 of 8
3 

to transfer” is pending. In re Google, 2015 WL 5294800, at *1. Further, if Apple engages in initial 

discovery or provides contentions here while its motion to transfer is pending, it may need to redo 

some of that work if the case proceeds and is later transferred to the Northern District of California, 

whose rules and requirements differ from those of this Court. See U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of California, Patent Local Rules, https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/filelibrary/177

/Patent_Local_Rules_1-2017.pdf. Staying this case until the Court rules on Apple’s transfer 

motion would avoid this risk of hardship to Apple. 

3. Factor Three: A Stay Will Conserve Judicial Resources 

Finally, a stay would best serve the interests of judicial economy. By considering Apple’s 

transfer motion first, this Court may avoid “needlessly expending its energies familiarizing itself 

with the intricacies of a case that the transferee judge may have to duplicate” should the Court 

grant Apple’s motion. Sparling v. Doyle, No. EP-13-CV-00323-DCG, 2014 WL 12489985, at *4 

(W.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2014) (quotations omitted). 

III. CONCLUSION 

Staying this case until the Court rules on Apple’s motion to transfer would make sure first 

things are handled first and benefit all involved. Neither NavBlazer nor Apple would have to 

expend resources until it was clear where and under what procedural rules this case will ultimately 

be litigated. Likewise, the Court could avoid expending resources learning the details of this matter 

unless it is clear that work is necessary. For these reasons, Apple respectfully requests the Court 

stay this case until it rules on Apple’s pending motion to transfer. 

Case 6:20-cv-00085-ADA Document 25 Filed 07/15/20 Page 6 of 8
4 

Date: July 15, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Michael Pieja 

Michael Pieja (Pro Hac Vice) 

California State Bar No. 250351 

Alan Littmann (Pro Hac Vice) 

Illinois State Bar No. 6283389 

Doug Winnard (Pro Hac Vice) 

California State Bar No. 275420

Samuel E. Schoenburg (Pro Hac Vice) 

Illinois State Bar No. 6327565 

GOLDMAN ISMAIL TOMASELLI 

 BRENNAN & BAUM LLP 

200 S. Wacker Dr., 22nd Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

Tel: (312) 881-5954 

Tel: (312) 881-5969 

Tel: (312) 881-5944 

Tel: (312) 881-5173 

Email: mpieja@goldmanismail.com 

Email: alittmann@goldmanismail.com 

Email: dwinnard@goldmanismail.com 

Email: sschoenburg@goldmanismail.com 

J. Stephen Ravel 

Texas State Bar No. 1658497 

KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP 

303 Colorado, Suite 2000 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Tel: (512) 495-6429 

Email: steve.ravel@kellyhart.com 

Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC. 

 

Case 6:20-cv-00085-ADA Document 25 Filed 07/15/20 Page 7 of 8
5 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic 

service are being served with a copy of DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO STAY 

PENDING RESOLUTION OF ITS MOTION TO TRANSFER via the Court’s CM/ECF 

system per Local Civil Rule CV-5(b)(1) on July 15, 2020. 

/s/ Michael Pieja 

Michael Pieja 

Case 6:20-cv-00085-ADA Document 25 Filed 07/15/20 Page 8 of 8