Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Avago Technologies U.S. Inc., et al v. Iptronics

February 15, 2013

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES U.S. INC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
IPTRONICS, INC., ET AL.
DEFENDANTS.



ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY; DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO STRIKE AS MOOT [Re: Docket No. 276, 313, 324]

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Presently before the court are Defendants IPtronics, Inc. and IPtronics A/S's (collectively "Defendants") Motion to Stay and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended and 20 Supplemental Complaint, and Plaintiffs Avago Technologies U.S. Inc., Avago Technologies 21 General IP (Singapore) PTE. Ltd., Avago Technologies Trading Ltd., Avago Technologies 22 International Sales, PTE. Ltd., and Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) PTE. Ltd.'s 23 (collectively, "Plaintiffs") Motion to Strike Defendants' First Amended Answer and Counterclaims 24 to Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint. The court found these matters suitable for 25 decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and previously vacated the 26 hearing. The court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Having fully 27 reviewed the parties' briefing, and for the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Defendants' 28

Motion to Stay, and DENIES Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike as 2 Moot. 3 5 lawsuit on June 29, 2010, alleging infringement of two of its U.S. patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6 5,359,447 ("the '447 patent") and 6,947,456 ("the '456 patent"). Dkt. No. 1. Defendants 7 counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity and noninfringement of both patents. 8

I.BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Avago Technologies Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. ("Avago Fiber IP") filed this Dkt. No. 23. Later, on May 26, 2011, Avago Fiber IP executed a series of license agreements 9 through which some of its rights to the patents-in-suit were purportedly transferred to several 10 affiliated entities: Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Avago Technologies (collectively, "the Avago Licensees.") 13

Complaint ("SASC"), joining the Avago Licensees and adding five business tort claims. Dkt. No. 16 172. While this motion was pending, the court held a claim construction hearing, and issued its 17 claim construction order. Dkt. No. 218, 258. With leave of the court, Avago Fiber IP filed its 18 SASC on September 18, 2012, joining the Avago Licensees as plaintiffs, and adding five business 19 tort claims for: (1) false advertising; (2) misappropriation of trade secrets; (3) violation of 20 California Business and Professions Code 17200; (4) intentional interference with contractual 21 relations; and (5) unjust enrichment. Dkt. Nos. 259, 268. 22 23 complaint at the International Trade Commission ("ITC") pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337, alleging 24 infringement of the '456 patent by IPTronics Inc., IPtronics A/S, and several other entities. See In 25 re Matter of Certain Optoelectronic Devices for Fiber OIptic Commc'ns, Inv. No. 337-TA-860. 26 The complaint also alleged infringement of Avago's U.S. Patent No. 5,596,595 ("the '595 patent) 27 against several entities, but not against IPTronics. The ITC instituted an investigation, naming 28 Trading Ltd., Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd., and Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. 12 On June 17, 2011 Avago Fiber IP moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), and on October 21, 2011, it moved to file a Second Amended and Supplemental 15 Less than one week later, Avago Fiber IP, Avago General IP, and Avago U.S. filed a IPtronics as a respondent. On December 6, 2012, Administrative Law Judge ("ALF") Theodore R. 2 Essex issued an order setting a target date of sixteen months, i.e., February 28, 2014. Decl. of Ary 3 Chang ("Chang Decl."), Ex. F. 4

II.LEGAL STANDARD

When parallel actions are proceeding before a district court and the International Trade

Commission, 28 U.S.C. § 1659 requires the district court to stay "any claim that involves the same 7 issues involved in the proceeding before the Commission" until the "determination of the 8 Commission becomes final" upon request by "a party to a civil action that is also a respondent in 9 the proceedings before the [ITC]." 10 District courts also have inherent authority to stay proceedings before them. "The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the 12 causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." 13

Landis v. No. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). This discretionary power can extend both to 14 patent claims and non-patent claims that are related to patent claims asserted in a parallel action. 15 22, 2011) ("Congress explicitly intended that district courts should consider using their 17 discretionary power to stay patent infringement litigation that is related to, but not duplicative of, 18 an action before the ITC"); Epistar Corp. v. Philips Lumileds Lighting Co., LLC, No. 07-CV-5194, 19 2008 WL 913321 *3 (N.D Cal. Apr. 2, 2008) (staying a breach of contract claim because it 20 overlapped with plaintiff's infringement claim). In determining whether to grant a discretionary 21 stay, the district court must consider "the possible damage which may result from the granting of a 22 stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the 23 orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and 24 questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay." CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 25 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). 26 27 28

See Zenith Elecs., LLC v. Sony Corp., No. 11-CV-02439, 2011 WL 2982377 *3-4 (N.D. Cal. July 16 is GRANTED as to those claims. The court is left to consider whether to grant a discretionary stay 4 as to the '447 patent and the business tort claims. 5 7 up to thirty-three months, because the patent-in-suit would expire during this delay, and because 8

III.DISCUSSION

Because the '456 patent claims are covered by the ITC Action, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.