Case 4:16-cv-01729-YGR Document 75 Filed 12/28/16 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Bradley W. Caldwell (Pro Hac Vice)
`bcaldwell@caldwellcc.com
`CALDWELL CASSADY & CURRY
`2101 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 1000
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: (214) 888-4848
`Facsimile: (214) 888-4849
`
`Christopher D. Banys (SBN 230038)
`cdb@banyspc.com
`BANYS, P.C.
`1032 Elwell Court, Suite 100
`Palo Alto, CA 94303
`Telephone: (650) 308-8505
`Facsimile: (650) 353-2202
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF WINDY
`CITY INNOVATIONS, LLC
`
`Heidi Lyn Keefe (SBN 178960)
`COOLEY LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`Telephone: (650) 843-5000
`Facsimile: (650) 849-7400
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`John W. McBride (Pro Hac Vice)
`jwmcbride@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`One South Dearborn
`Chicago, IL 60603
`Telephone: (312) 853-7000
`Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
`
`IRENE YANG (SBN 245464)
`irene.yang@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`555 California Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 772-1200
`Fascimile: (415) 772-1400
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`
`WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos.4:16-cv-01729-YGR
`
`4:16-cv-01730-YGR
`
`Related Actions
`
`STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
`ORDER TO STAY LITIGATION
`PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`*As Modified by the Court*
`
`
`
` STIPULATION TO STAY PENDING
`INTER PARTES REVIEW
`CASE NOS. 4:16-CV-01729-YGR; 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-01729-YGR Document 75 Filed 12/28/16 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, plaintiff Windy City Innovations, LLC (“Plaintiff”)
`
`and defendants Facebook Inc. (“Facebook”) and Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) (collectively,
`
`“Defendants”) jointly submit this stipulated request for an order staying the present litigation
`
`pending Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) of
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,407,356 (“the ’356 patent”), 8,458,245 (“the ’245 patent”), 8,473,552 (“the ’552
`
`patent”), and 8,694,657 (“the ’657 patent”) (collectively, “the Patents-in-Suit”). The parties jointly
`
`stipulate and submit as follows:
`
`WHEREAS, Plaintiff asserts in the above-captioned actions that Defendants have infringed
`
`the Patents-in-Suit;
`
`WHEREAS, the PTO recently instituted IPR proceedings regarding each of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit as follows (collectively, “Instituted IPR Proceedings”):
` On December 8, 2016, the PTO instituted IPR on ’657 Patent claims 1, 2, 18, 27, 35,
`
`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
`
`43, 51, 65, 79, 93, 100, 108, 114, 126, 138, 150, 156, 168, 170, 172, 176, 178, 180,
`
`182-90, 202, 208, 214, 220, 226, 238, 250, 262, 268, 274, 280, 292, 304, 316, 322,
`
`328, 334, 336, 340, 342, 344, 346, 348, 350, 352-54, 362, 366, 370, 374, 378, 386,
`
`394, 402, 406, 410, 414, 422, 430, 438, 442, 450, 452, 454, 456, 458, 460, 462, 464-
`
`66, 476, 481, 486, 491, 496, 505, 515, 525, 530, 535, 545, 555, 565, 570, 580, 582,
`
`584, 586, 588, 590, 592, 594, 596-98, 606, 607, 615-17, 619, 621, 622, 624-26, 628,
`
`630, 632-34, 636, 638, 640-42, 644, 646, and 648-71 in IPR2016-01155;
` On December 8, 2016, the PTO instituted IPR regarding ’356 Patent claims 1-37 in
`
`2.
`
`STIPULATION TO STAY PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`CASE NOS. 4:16-CV-01729-YGR; 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-01729-YGR Document 75 Filed 12/28/16 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`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
`
`IPR2016-01067;
` On December 12, 2016, the PTO instituted IPR regarding ’245 patent claims 1-40 in
`
`IPR2016-01141;
` On December 12, 2016, the PTO instituted IPR regarding ’552 patent claims 1-59 and
`
`64 in IPR2016-01158;
` On December 12, 2016, the PTO instituted IPR regarding ’657 patent claims 189, 334,
`
`342, 348, 465, 580, 584, and 592 in IPR2016-01159;
` On December 15, 2016, the PTO instituted IPR regarding ’356 patent claims 1-9, 12,
`
`14-28, 31, and 33-37 in IPR2016-01157; and
` On December 15, 2016, the PTO instituted IPR regarding ’245 patent claims 1-15, 17,
`
`and 18 in IPR2016-01156.
`
`WHEREAS, the PTO denied instituting IPR proceedings on the following IPR petitions:
` On November 29, 2016, the PTO denied institution regarding ’552 patent claims 1–17,
`
`50–53, 58, and 64 in IPR2016-01137;
` On November 29, 2016, the PTO denied institution regarding ’552 patent claims 18–
`
`49, 54–57, and 59–63 in IPR2016-01138;
` On November 29, 2016, the PTO denied institution regarding ’552 patent claims 1–58
`
`in IPR2016-01146; and
` On November 29, 2016, the PTO denied institution regarding ’552 patent claims 59–
`
`64 in IPR2016-01147.
`
`WHEREAS, in the above-captioned actions, the Court has not yet conducted claim
`
`construction proceedings or scheduled the close of discovery or trial;
`
`WHEREAS, pursuant to the Patent Statute, the PTO must issue a Final Written Decision in
`
`each Instituted IPR Proceeding within 1 year of the date of institution, which may be extended by no
`
`more than 6 months for good cause shown (35 U.S.C. §§ 316(a)(11), 318(a));
`
`WHEREAS, the Court previously indicated its preference to stay the present litigation
`
`pending Inter Partes Review proceedings;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`STIPULATION TO STAY PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`CASE NOS. 4:16-CV-01729-YGR; 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-01729-YGR Document 75 Filed 12/28/16 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`WHEREAS, for purposes of judicial economy and to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of
`
`resources, the parties desire to stay the present litigation pending Final Written Decisions of the
`
`Instituted IPR Proceedings;
`
`WHEREAS, the parties agree that after the Final Written Decisions have issued in all of the
`
`Instituted IPR Proceedings, the parties shall jointly request that the Court schedule a joint status
`
`conference at the Court’s convenience to be conducted no earlier than 60 days after all of the Final
`
`Written Decisions have issued;
`
`NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties through their respective
`
`counsel, subject to the approval of the Court, that the above-captioned actions are hereby stayed until
`
`further order of the Court. After the Final Written Decisions have issued in all of the Instituted IPR
`
`Proceedings, the parties shall jointly request that the Court schedule a joint status conference at the
`
`Court’s convenience to be conducted no earlier than 60 days after all of the Final Written Decisions
`
`have issued.
`
`IT IS SO STIPULATED.
`
`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.
`
`STIPULATION TO STAY PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`CASE NOS. 4:16-CV-01729-YGR; 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:16-cv-01729-YGR Document 75 Filed 12/28/16 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`Dated: December 23, 2016
`
`Dated: December 23, 2016
`
`Dated: December 23, 2016
`
`CALDWELL CASSADY & CURRY
`
`/s/ Bradley Caldwell
` Bradley Caldwell
`
`Attorneys For Plaintiff,
`Windy City Innovations, LLC
`
`COOLEY LLP
`
`/s/ Heidi L. Keefe
` Heidi L. Keefe
`
`Attorneys For Defendant,
`Facebook, Inc.
`
`
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`
`/s/ Irene Yang
` Irene Yang
`
`Attorneys For Defendant,
`Microsoft Corp.
`PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`The Court further SETS a compliance hearing regarding the status of the aforementioned inter partes
`
`review for Friday, June 30, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in the Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland,
`
`Courtroom 1. By June 23, 2017, the parties must file a Joint Statement updating the Court on the
`
`status of the inter partes review. If the Court is satisfied with the parties’ submission, the
`
`compliance hearing may be taken off calendar and the parties need not appear.
`
`
`
`DATED: _______________, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HON. YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`STIPULATION TO STAY PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`CASE NOS. 4:16-CV-01729-YGR; 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`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
`
`
`
`December 28
`
`