Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 59 Filed 02/23/24 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1133
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 23-278-MN
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)))))))))
`
`PAYRANGE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CSC SERVICEWORKS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF PAYRANGE INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
`CSC SERVICEWORKS INC.’S
`MOTION TO STAY PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Andrew M. Moshos (#6685)
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`amoshos@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff PayRange Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`James C. Yoon
`Ryan R. Smith
`Christopher D. Mays
`Alexander Miller
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Tel: (650) 493-9300
`
`Jamie Y. Otto
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`953 East Third Street, Suite 100
`Los Angeles, CA 90013
`Tel: (323) 210-2900
`
`Dated: February 23, 2024
`1134998 / 23372.00001
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 59 Filed 02/23/24 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 1134
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................2
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................................................................3
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................4
`A.
`CSC’s request for a stay is premature. .....................................................................4
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Factor 1: A stay would not simply the issues in question and trial of the
`case. ..........................................................................................................................5
`
`Factor 2: The current status of the litigation and IPR proceedings do not
`favor a stay. ..............................................................................................................8
`
`Factor 3: A stay would prejudice PayRange. ..........................................................9
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................10
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 59 Filed 02/23/24 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 1135
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`454 Life Scis. Corp. v. ION Torrent Sys., Inc.,
`C.A.No. 15-595, 2016 WL 6594083 (D. Del. Nov. 7, 2016) ..............................................4
`Bonutti Skeletal Innovations, L.L.C. v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 12-1107-GMS, 2014 WL 1369721 (D. Del. Apr. 7, 2014) ..................................7
`Brit. Telecomms. PLC v. IAC/InterActieCorp,
`C.A. No. 18-366-WCB, 2020 WL 5517283 (D. Del. Sept. 11, 2020) .................................5
`CAO Lighting, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`C.A. No. 20-681-GBW, 2022 WL 17752270 (D. Del. Dec. 19, 2022) ...............................6
`Click-to-Call Techs. LP v. Ingenio, Inc.,
`45 F.4th 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................................6
`Cost Bros., Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co.,
`760 F.2d 58 (3d Cir. 1985)...................................................................................................3
`Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg,
`849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988)............................................................................................3
`In re Cygnus Telecomm. Tech., LLC., Patent Litig.,
`385 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2005) ...............................................................................4
`Invensas Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`C.A. No. 17-1363, 2018 WL 4762957 (D. Del. Oct. 2, 2018) ............................................4
`
`InVue Security Prods. Inc. v. Vanguard Prods. Grp., Inc.,
`No. 8:18-cv-2548-T-33SPF, 2019 WL 3958272 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2019) ......................9
`
`IOENGINE, LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc.,
`C.A. Nos. 18-452-WCB, 18-826-WCB, 2019 WL 3943058 (D. Del. Aug.
`21, 2019) ......................................................................................................................3, 4, 7
`Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp.,
`64 F.4th 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ............................................................................................6
`Kaavo Inc. v. Cognizant Tech. Sols. Corp.,
`C.A. No. 14-1192-LPS-CJB, 2015 WL 1737476 (D. Del. Apr. 9, 2015)............................5
`Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 19 Civ. 4297 (ER), 2021 WL 195163 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2021), aff’d,
`15 F.4th 1101 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................7
`Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oréal USA, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 17-14-JFB-SRF, 2019 WL 1873281 (D. Del. Apr. 25. 2019) ..............................5
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 59 Filed 02/23/24 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 1136
`
`Neste Oil Oyj v. Dynamic Fuels,
`C.A No. 12-662-GMS, 2013 WL 424754 (D. Del. Jan. 31, 2013) ......................................9
`Nexans Inc. v. Belden Inc.,
`C.A. No. 12-1491-SLR-SRF, 2014 WL 651913 (D. Del. Feb. 19, 2014) ...........................8
`Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc.,
`No. 22-CV-00082 (RA) (OTW), 2023 WL 2214884 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24,
`2023) ....................................................................................................................................7
`Pegasus Dev. Corp. v. Directv, Inc.,
`C.A No. 00-1020-GMS, 2003 WL 21105073 (D. Del. May 14, 2003) ..............................7
`Princeton Digit. Image Corp. v. Konami Digit. Ent. Inc.,
`C.A. Nos. 12-1461-LPS-CJB, 13-335-LPS-CJB, 2014 WL 3819458 (D.
`Del. Jan. 15, 2014) ...............................................................................................................4
`SenoRx, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 12-173-LPS, 2013 WL 144255 (D. Del. Jan. 11, 2013) .......................................5
`SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`C.A. No. 10-389-LPS, 2012 WL 3061027 (D. Del. Jul. 26, 2012) .....................................8
`Tomco Equip. Co. v. Se. Agri-Sys.,
`542 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (N.D. Ga. 2008) ................................................................................9
`Universal Secure Registry, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`C.A. No. 17-585, 2018 WL 4486379 (D. Del. Sept. 19, 2018) ...........................................4
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................................................6
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................................................6
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) .......................................................................................................................6
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 59 Filed 02/23/24 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 1137
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`CSC has filed the instant motion to stay the entire litigation through the entire IPR
`
`process based on a single institution of IPR for one of four Asserted Patents1. But a stay is not
`
`warranted under the circumstances of the present case.
`
`First, CSC’s motion is premature because the PTAB has still not yet issued an institution
`
`decision on the last of four Asserted Patents. That decision is due soon in April 2024. The
`
`appropriate time to consider a stay is after all of the institution decisions have been entered,
`
`especially here where CSC seeks to stay the entire case until all of its IPRs are exhausted. In
`
`less than two months, the parties and the Court will be in a better position to determine the
`
`potential impact of the PTAB’s IPR decisions.
`
`Second, the factors that courts typically consider weigh against a stay. The potential to
`
`simplify issues through a stay is limited because the PTAB has already denied institution for two
`
`of the four Asserted Patents. As a result, the parties must litigate the issues of validity and
`
`infringement of the non-instituted ’208 and ’608 Patents—which comprise two-thirds of the total
`
`asserted claims—regardless of the outcome of the pending IPRs on the ’045 and ’772 Patents.
`
`For similar reasons, the potential benefits of reduced discovery are also unlikely to be so
`
`significant to the parties that they warrant taking this case off of its present scheduling track.
`
`Moreover, CSC’s request to stay the entire litigation substantially prejudices PayRange in the
`
`adjudication of its non-instituted claims and will also cause undue prejudice because CSC and
`
`PayRange are direct competitors in the market for mobile payments for laundry services, and
`
`PayRange thus suffers ongoing harm from CSC’s infringement.
`
`1 “Asserted Patents” refers to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,856,045 (“’045 Patent”); 10,438,208 (“’208
`Patent”); 10,891,608 (“’608 Patent”); and 11,481,772 (“’772 Patent”).
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 59 Filed 02/23/24 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 1138
`
`Accordingly, because CSC has failed to show that a stay is appropriate at this stage of the
`
`case, and will not prejudice PayRange, CSC’s motion should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`PayRange is a pioneer and innovator. PayRange’s acclaimed technology enables its
`
`customers to upgrade a coin-operated unattended retail machine into a state-of-the-art mobile
`
`payment solution with a small module, called “BluKey,” which enables mobile transactions
`
`using a mobile payment app. In 2016, CSC sought to upgrade its payment systems and entered
`
`discussions with PayRange regarding PayRange’s mobile payment technology. During that
`
`time, CSC began working on building its own solution and ultimately released the CSCPay
`
`Mobile app in 2018 and then the CSC Go app shortly thereafter without any proper license.
`
`Thus, PayRange filed the instant suit on March 15, 2023—which was just five months
`
`after the October 25, 2022 issuance of the ’772 Patent—seeking remedy based on CSC’s
`
`infringement of four of PayRange’s patents directed to mobile payment technology.
`
`On June 17, 2023, CSC filed three IPR petitions for the ’045, ’208 and ’608 Patents, and
`
`then filed a fourth IPR petition for the ’772 Patent on October 9, 2023. On January 19, 2024, the
`
`PTAB instituted review of the ’045 Patent only and denied institution for the ’208 and ’608
`
`Patents. The institution decision for the ’772 Patent is still pending. The status of the IPRs are
`
`summarized in the chart below:
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 59 Filed 02/23/24 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 1139
`
`Case No.
`
`Asserted Patent
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`Institution Decision
`
`IPR2023-01186
`
`’045 Patent
`
`1-3, 10-12, and 18-19
`
`Instituted
`
`IPR2023-01187
`
`’208 Patent
`
`1-2, 12-13 and 17-18
`
`Institution Denied
`
`IPR2023-01188
`
`’608 Patent
`
`1-2, 5-6, 7-8, 11-14 and 17-20
`
`Institution Denied
`
`IPR2023-01449
`
`’772 Patent
`
`11
`
`Pending Institution Decision
`
`Ex.2 A (IPR2023-01186 Institution Decision); Ex. B (IPR2023-01187 Institution Decision); Ex.
`
`C (IPR2023-01188 Institution Decision); Ex. D (IPR2023-01449 Petition).
`
`On February 9, 2024, CSC filed the instant motion to stay. D.I. 52 (“Op. Br.”).
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`The decision whether to grant a stay is generally committed to the district court’s
`
`discretion. Cost Bros., Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 760 F.2d 58, 60–61 (3d Cir. 1985)
`
`(collecting cases). This discretion includes “whether to stay proceedings pending review by the
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) of the validity of the patent or patents at issue in the
`
`lawsuit.” IOENGINE, LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., C.A. Nos. 18-452-WCB, 18-826-WCB,
`
`2019 WL 3943058 (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2019) (citing Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1988)). District courts typically consider three factors when determining whether to grant a
`
`stay pending inter partes review of the patent in suit: “(1) whether granting the stay will simplify
`
`the issues for trial; (2) the status of the litigation, particularly when discovery is complete and a
`
`trial date has been set; and (3) whether a stay would cause the non-movant to suffer undue
`
`prejudice from any delay, or allow the movant to gain a clear tactical advantage.” IOENGINE,
`
`2 Exhibits are attached to the Declaration of Jamie Otto filed herewith in support of
`PayRange’s Opposition to CSC’s Motion to Stay.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 59 Filed 02/23/24 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 1140
`
`2019 WL 3943058 (quoting Princeton Digit. Image Corp. v. Konami Digit. Ent. Inc., C.A. Nos.
`
`12-1461-LPS-CJB, 13-335-LPS-CJB, 2014 WL 3819458 (D. Del. Jan. 15, 2014) (collecting
`
`cases)); see also In re Cygnus Telecomm. Tech., LLC., Patent Litig., 385 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (N.D.
`
`Cal. 2005).
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`CSC’s request for a stay is premature.
`
`CSC’s request for a stay is premature because “courts almost invariably deny requests for
`
`stays pending IPR proceedings when the stay requests are filed before the IPR is instituted, and a
`
`pre-institution request therefore would have been futile.” IOENGINE, 2019 WL 3943058, *6
`
`(citing Invensas Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., C.A. No. 17-1363, 2018 WL 4762957, at *6 (D.
`
`Del. Oct. 2, 2018); Universal Secure Registry, LLC v. Apple Inc., C.A. No. 17-585, 2018 WL
`
`4486379, at *4-5 (D. Del. Sept. 19, 2018); 454 Life Scis. Corp. v. ION Torrent Sys., Inc., C.A.
`
`No. 15-595, 2016 WL 6594083, at *4 (D. Del. Nov. 7, 2016) (stay motion filed shortly after
`
`PTAB issued its institution decisions, “which is generally the ideal time at which to file such a
`
`request.”)).
`
`Here, the PTAB has still not yet issued an institution decision on the ’772 Patent. Until
`
`then, CSC’s request is premature, particularly since CSC’s request seeks to stay the entire case
`
`for all Asserted Patents. However, in less than two months, the PTAB will issue the final
`
`institution decision for the last Asserted Patent, at which point the parties and the Court will be in
`
`a better position to determine the potential impact of the PTAB’s IPR decisions. Therefore,
`
`CSC’s request should be denied at this time.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 59 Filed 02/23/24 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 1141
`
`B.
`
`Factor 1: A stay would not simply the issues in question and trial of the case.
`
`The parties agree that the most important factor in determining whether to stay is whether
`
`the stay is likely to simplify the issues at trial. See Op. Br. 5 (citing Brit. Telecomms. PLC v.
`
`IAC/InterActieCorp, C.A. No. 18-366-WCB, 2020 WL 5517283, at *9 (D. Del. Sept. 11, 2020)).
`
`But contrary to CSC’s arguments, here, a stay may not simplify the issues in the case as CSC
`
`contends and certainly could never eliminate the need for a trial because the PTAB has already
`
`denied institution for two of four IPR petitions filed by CSC. As a result, more than half of the
`
`asserted claims will need to be litigated in district court, regardless of the outcome of the two
`
`pending IPR proceedings. Thus, even if the PTAB grants institution of the ’772 Patent, less than
`
`a third of the asserted claims will continue to be in the reexamination proceeding. See Kaavo
`
`Inc. v. Cognizant Tech. Sols. Corp., C.A. No. 14-1192-LPS-CJB, 2015 WL 1737476, at *1 (D.
`
`Del. Apr. 9, 2015) (citing SenoRx, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., C.A. No. 12-173-LPS, 2013 WL
`
`144255, at *3-4 (D. Del. Jan. 11, 2013) (“in assessing the simplification factor as to a request for
`
`a stay in favor of inter partes reexamination, examining what percentage of the asserted claims
`
`are at issue in the reexamination proceeding.”) (emphasis added). Thus, CSC’s cited patent
`
`office statistics regarding the likelihood of survival of claims following IPR has little informative
`
`value here, where majority of the claims at issue have already survived. See Op. Br. 7.
`
`The assertion that the pending ’045 and ’772 IPRs will have any effect on the non-
`
`instituted ’208 and ’608 Patents is highly speculative. See Op. Br. 5-6. Contrary to CSC’s
`
`arguments, the instituted ’045 IPR is unlikely to provide guidance on the issues of the two non-
`
`instituted ’208 and ’608 Patents because the PTAB’s determinations are not generally binding on
`
`this Court. Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oréal USA, Inc., C.A. No. 17-14-JFB-SRF, 2019 WL 1873281, *4
`
`(D. Del. Apr. 25. 2019). It is especially unlikely that the PTAB will provide any relevant
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 59 Filed 02/23/24 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 1142
`
`guidance on claim construction disputes, given that CSC’s IPR petitions did not identify any
`
`terms for construction and the Board has stated that all terms should therefore be given their
`
`plain and ordinary meaning. See, e.g., Ex. A at 11; Ex. B at 10; Ex. C at 9-10; Ex. D at 13.
`
`Additionally, CSC’s speculation regarding the scope and effect of IPR estoppel does not
`
`warrant a stay. The scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) can be determined at the
`
`moment of institution because it is “‘the petition, not the institution decision’ [that] ‘defines the
`
`scope of the IPR’ litigation.” Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., 64 F.4th 1274, 1297 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2023) (quoting Click-to-Call Techs. LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 45 F.4th 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2022)); see also Op. Br. 7. Since the PTAB has already issued institution decisions for three of
`
`the four Asserted Patents, there is no need to stay the litigation as to those patents because the
`
`PTAB’s final written decision on the sole instituted ’045 Patent will not change the scope of IPR
`
`estoppel. The only possible change in the scope of IPR estoppel that may occur during a stay
`
`would be for the single asserted claim of the last ’772 IPR petition that is still awaiting an
`
`institution decision. Thus, a stay would provide very minimal simplification, if at all, based on
`
`IPR estoppel.
`
`Moreover, the IPRs only related to CSC’s invalidity challenges under 35 U.S.C. § § 102
`
`and 103 for prior art reference-based grounds. See generally, Exs. A-D. But according to CSC’s
`
`Initial Invalidity Contentions, CSC also raises numerous Section 101 and Section 112 invalidity
`
`challenges, which the PTAB cannot determine through its claim construction. CAO Lighting,
`
`Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., C.A. No. 20-681-GBW, 2022 WL 17752270, at *2 (D. Del. Dec. 19,
`
`2022) (holding this factor neutral when “the issues before the PTAB are not the only defenses
`
`asserted by Defendants in [the] actions.”). Also, more than half of CSC’s prior art combinations
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 59 Filed 02/23/24 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 1143
`
`are centered on prior art systems. None of these invalidity defenses will be impacted by IPR
`
`estoppel.
`
`Although CSC points to cases where courts have stayed a case in its entirety even when
`
`IPR was instituted on fewer than all claims, many of these cases do not involve situations where
`
`the PTAB had already denied institution for majority of the claims at issue. See, e.g., Bonutti
`
`Skeletal Innovations, L.L.C. v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., No. 12-CV-1107 (GMS), 2014 WL
`
`1369721, at *1 (D. Del. Apr. 7, 2014) (IPR instituted for two of six asserted patents and none
`
`denied institution.); Pegasus Dev. Corp. v. Directv, Inc., No. CIV.A. 00-1020-GMS, 2003 WL
`
`21105073, at *1 (D. Del. May 14, 2003) (Ex Parte Reexamination instituted for one of six
`
`asserted patents and none denied institution.); Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc., No. 22-CV-
`
`00082 (RA) (OTW), 2023 WL 2214884, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2023) (All the IPRs are
`
`pending and thus none denied institution.). In another cited case, Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung
`
`Elecs. Co., the PTAB issued institution decisions on all filed IPRs, which enabled the court to
`
`make a knowledgeable decision on the entire scope of the issues involved in the IPR
`
`proceedings. Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 19 Civ. 4297 (ER), 2021 WL 195163,
`
`at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2021), aff’d, 15 F.4th 1101 (Fed. Cir. 2021). In IOENGINE, out of the
`
`twelve IPR petitions, one was instituted and one was denied institution, but the remaining ten
`
`were still awaiting institution decisions. IOENGINE, 2019 WL 3943058, at *1. In all of these
`
`cases, the pending IPRs had the potential to significantly simplify the issues due to the large
`
`percentage of asserted claims under review. Here, in contrast, majority of the asserted claims
`
`will not be further reviewed by the PTAB.
`
`Because CSC’s case law does not apply to the instant facts and because a stay of the
`
`entire litigation will not simplify the case for a significant majority of asserted claims and
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 59 Filed 02/23/24 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 1144
`
`invalidity issues in the case, this factor weighs against a stay or is at best neutral. To the extent
`
`this Court finds that the benefits of proceeding on all the instituted patents is outweighed by the
`
`risk, PayRange respectfully requests that this Court grant only a limited stay of just litigation of
`
`the instituted ’045 Patent.
`
`C.
`
`Factor 2: The current status of the litigation and IPR proceedings do not
`favor a stay.
`
`Although the relatively early stage of the litigation often favors a stay, “the early stage of
`
`the litigation must be balanced against the stage of the reexamination proceedings.” SoftView
`
`LLC v. Apple Inc., Civ. No. 10-389-LPS, 2012 WL 3061027, *4 (D. Del. Jul. 26, 2012). As
`
`explained above for Factor 1, majority of the asserted claims have already survived the IPR
`
`process. See supra Section I.A. As a result, much of the cost of discovery will be born
`
`regardless of the outcome of the pending IPRs because there are substantial number of surviving
`
`asserted claims and issues and discovery regarding the accused products will not substantially
`
`change, if at all, based on the outcome of the IPRs. Thus, “[t]he potential benefits of reduced
`
`discovery are not likely to be so significant to the parties that they warrant taking this case off of
`
`its present scheduling track.” See Nexans Inc. v. Belden Inc., C.A. No. 12-1491-SLR-SRF, 2014
`
`WL 651913, at *4 (D. Del. Feb. 19, 2014), report and recommendation adopted, C.A. No. 12-
`
`1491-SLR/SRF, 2014 WL 1232218 (D. Del. Mar. 12, 2014).
`
`Finally, contrary to CSC’s arguments, the number of accused products does not favor a
`
`stay. CSC cites to no case law suggesting that the number of accused products should be a factor
`
`at all when considering a stay. Moreover, PayRange should not be penalized for settling claims
`
`to reduce the number of the accused products in this case.
`
`Accordingly, the status of the litigation and IPR proceedings does not favor a stay.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 59 Filed 02/23/24 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 1145
`
`D.
`
`Factor 3: A stay would prejudice PayRange.
`
`A stay would prejudice PayRange where the parties are direct competitors and where
`
`PayRange has other claims pending that do not depend on the validity of the patents involved in
`
`the pending IPRs. “[C]ourts are generally reluctant to stay proceedings where the parties are
`
`direct competitors.” Neste Oil Oyj v. Dynamic Fuels, LLC, Cival Action No. 12-662-GMS, 2013
`
`WL 424754, at *2 (D. Del. Jan. 31, 2013) (internal citation and quotations omitted). “In such
`
`cases, ‘there is a reasonable chance that delay in adjudicating the alleged infringement will have
`
`outsized consequences to the party asserting infringement has occurred, including the potential
`
`for loss of market share and an erosion of goodwill.’” Id., at *2. Additionally, courts have also
`
`held that “a party may be prejudiced when it has other claims pending that do not depend on the
`
`validity of the patent involved in the inter partes review and would nevertheless be put on hold
`
`during the stay.” InVue Security Prods. Inc. v. Vanguard Prods. Grp., Inc., No. 8:18-cv-2548-T-
`
`33SPF, 2019 WL 3958272, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2019); see also Tomco Equip. Co. v. Se.
`
`Agri-Sys., Inc., 542 F. Supp. 2d 1303, 1308 (N.D. Ga. 2008).
`
`Contrary to CSC’s arguments, CSC and PayRange are direct competitors in the market
`
`for mobile payments for laundry services. PayRange offers a mobile payment service for
`
`laundry services. See Exs. E-F; see also, e.g., D.I. 12 (“Am. Compl.”) ¶¶ 2-4. CSC provides
`
`laundry solutions and offers a competing mobile payment services, including the CSCPay
`
`Mobile and CSC Mobile apps. See Op. Br. 12, see also, e.g., Am. Compl. ¶¶ 20-21, 54. As a
`
`result, PayRange suffers ongoing harm from CSC’s infringement. Moreover, PayRange not only
`
`seeks monetary damages, but also injunctive relief. Am. Compl. at 27-28.
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00278-MN Document 59 Filed 02/23/24 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 1146
`
`Finally, as explained above, there are a substantial number of asserted claims that have
`
`already survived the IPR process and thus delaying litigation on those claims would naturally
`
`prejudice PayRange more than CSC.
`
`Accordingly, because PayRange will suffer undue prejudice from a stay, CSC’s motion to
`
`stay should be denied.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Because the CSC’s motion to stay is premature and because the factors weigh against
`
`staying the instant case, PayRange respectfully requests the Court deny CSC’s motion to stay
`
`this litigation pending IPR.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`James C. Yoon
`Ryan R. Smith
`Christopher D. Mays
`Alexander Miller
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Tel: (650) 493-9300
`
`Jamie Y. Otto
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`953 East Third Street, Suite 100
`Los Angeles, CA 90013
`Tel: (323) 210-2900
`
`Dated: February 23, 2024
`1134398 / 23372.00001
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`By: /s/ David E. Moore
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Andrew M. Moshos (#6685)
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`amoshos@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff PayRange Inc.
`
`-10-
`
`