IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1, §

§

Plaintiff, § C.A. No. 6:20-cv-178-ADA

v. §

§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., MICRON §

SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC., and §

MICRON TECHNOLOGY TEXAS, LLC, §

§

Defendants. §

§

JOINT MOTION TO STAY

Case 6:20-cv-00178-ADA Document 202 Filed 12/07/21 Page 1 of 5
-1-

Plaintiff IP Bridge Godo Kaisha 1 (“IP Bridge”) and Defendants Micron Technology, 

Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Technology Texas, LLC (collectively, 

“Micron”) jointly move to stay this matter until the completion of any appeals of the Final 

Written Decisions in IPR Nos. 2020-01007, IPR2020-01008, and IPR2020-01009. 

On December 1, 2, and 6, 2021, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issued 

Final Written Decisions finding unpatentable the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,424,041, 

6,445,047, and 6,747,320. A fourth asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,189,616, was not subject 

to an IPR. The PTAB has now found nine out of ten asserted claims unpatentable. Trial is 

currently scheduled to commence January 18, 2022. The parties agree that this case should be 

stayed in its entirety pending resolution of any appeals of the Final Written Decisions, or the 

expiration of the time for seeking judicial review. 

As this Court explained in Kirsch Research & Development., LLC v. IKO Industries., 

Inc.: 

A district court has the inherent power to control its own docket, 

including the power to stay proceedings before it. ... In particular, 

the question whether to stay proceedings pending inter partes 

review of a patent is a matter committed to the district court’s 

discretion. ... A stay is particularly justified when the outcome of a 

PTO proceeding is likely to assist the court in determining patent 

validity or eliminate the need to try infringement issues. 

No. 6:20-CV-00317-ADA, 2021 WL 4555610, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2021) (staying case 

pending instituted inter partes review) (internal citations ellipsed and quotations removed). 

“‘District courts typically consider three factors when determining whether to grant a stay 

pending inter partes review of a patent in suit: (1) whether the stay will unduly prejudice the 

nonmoving party, (2) whether the proceedings before the court have reached an advanced stage, 

including whether discovery is complete and a trial date has been set, and (3) whether the stay 

will likely result in simplifying the case before the court.’” Id. at *2 (quoting NFC Tech. LLC v. 

Case 6:20-cv-00178-ADA Document 202 Filed 12/07/21 Page 2 of 5
-2-

HTC Am., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-1058, 2015 WL 1069111, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015) (Bryson, 

J., sitting by designation)). 

Here, the simplification of the issues “overwhelms” the other two factors and favors a 

stay. Kirsch, 2021 WL 4555610, at *3. If the Final Written Decisions are upheld on appeal, 

those claims will be cancelled and the parties will not need to try those claims to the jury. 

Further, by staying the litigation now, the Court will not need to decide multiple pending 

motions, many of which address issues that are common to both the claims found unpatentable 

and the claim of the’616 patent that was not subject to IPR. Moreover, IP Bridge will not suffer 

any undue prejudice from a stay in this particular case, as it does not oppose the stay under the 

circumstances here. 

Thus, to avoid wasting the Court’s time and resources, the jurors’ time and resources, and 

the parties’ time and resources, the parties jointly request that the Court stay this case pending 

completion of any appeals from the Final Written Decisions. 

Case 6:20-cv-00178-ADA Document 202 Filed 12/07/21 Page 3 of 5
-3-

Dated: December 7, 2021 /s/ B. Russell Horton

B. Russell Horton

GEORGE BROTHERS KINCAID &

HORTON LLP

TX State Bar No. 10014450

114 West 7th Street, Suite 1100

Austin, Texas 78701

Telephone: (512) 495-1400

rhorton@gbkh.com

James R. Batchelder

Andrew N. Thomases

Andrew T. Radsch

ROPES & GRAY LLP

1900 University Avenue

East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284 

Tel: 650-617-4000

Fax: 650-617-4090

James.Batchelder@ropesgray.com

Andrew.Thomases@ropesgray.com

Andrew.Radsch@ropesgray.com

Han Xu

ROPES & GRAY LLP

JP Tower 30F, 2-7-2, Marunouchi

Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-7030, Japan

Tel: 81 3 6259 3524

Fax: 81 3 6259 3595

Han.Xu@ropesgray.com

Hyun-Joong (Daniel) Kim

ROPES & GRAY LLP

1211 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036-8704

Telephone: (212) 596-9000

Facsimile: (212) 596-9090

Daniel.Kim@ropesgray.com

Allen S. Cross

ROPES & GRAY LLP

2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

Telephone: (202) 508-4600

Facsimile: (202) 508-4650

Allen.Cross@ropesgray.com

Case 6:20-cv-00178-ADA Document 202 Filed 12/07/21 Page 4 of 5
-4-

Attorneys for Plaintiff

GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1.

/s/ Jason Lang

Jared Bobrow (CA State Bar No. 133712)

Jason Lang (CA State Bar No. 255642)

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

1000 Marsh Road

Menlo Park, CA 94025

Tel: (650) 614-7400

Fax: (650) 614-7401

jbobrow@orrick.com

jlang@orrick.com

Claudia Wilson Frost

State Bar No. 21671300

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

609 Main Street, 40th Floor

Houston, TX 77002

Tel: (713) 658-6400

Fax: (713) 658-6400

cfrost@orrick.com

Kristina McKenna (MA State Bar No. 706245)

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

222 Berkley St., Suite 2000

Boston, MA 02116

Tel: (617) 880-2214

Fax: (617) 880-1801

kmckenna@orrick.com

Attorneys for Defendants Micron Technology,

Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and

Micron Technology Texas, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on December 7, 2021, all counsel of record who are deemed 

to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via email. 

/s/ B. Russell Horton

B. Russell Horton

Case 6:20-cv-00178-ADA Document 202 Filed 12/07/21 Page 5 of 5