Case 2:19-cv-09230-MWF-JDE Document 82 Filed 12/30/20 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:1194
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
`Case No. CV-19-9230-MWF (JDEx)
`Date: December 30, 2020
`Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.
`Title:
`
`Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge
`Deputy Clerk:
`Court Reporter:
`Not Reported
`Rita Sanchez
`Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
`Attorneys Present for Defendant:
`None Present
`None Present
`Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER DENYINGDEFENDANT SKECHERS
`U.S.A., INC.’S MOTION TO STAY PENDING
`INTER PARTES REVIEW [71]
`Before the Court is Defendant Skechers U.S.A., Inc.’s Motionto StayPending
`Inter Partes Review(the “Motion”), filed on November23, 2020.(Docket No.71).
`Plaintiff filed an opposition on November 30, 2020. (Docket No. 72). Defendant filed
`a reply on December 7, 2020. (Docket No. 73).
`The Court has read and considered the papers filed in connection with the
`motion and helda telephonic hearing on December 21, 2020, pursuantto General
`Order 20-09and the Continuity of Operations Plan (“COOP”), effective December 9,
`2020,through and including January 8, 2021, arising fromthe COVID-19 pandemic.
`The Motion is DENIED, essentially for all the reasons arguedby Plaintiff.
`“[A] court is under no obligation to delay its own proceedings by yielding to
`ongoing PTAB patent reexaminations—even if the reexaminations are relevant to the
`infringement claims before the Court.” Pinn, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,SACV19-1805-DOC-
`(JDEx),2020 WL 6064642, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2020)(citation omitted).
`This Court considers several factors when evaluating whether to grant a stay,
`including:“(1) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial datehas been set; (2)
`whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case; and (3) whether
`______________________________________________________________________________
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 1
`EX. 2002 - Page 1
`
`Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.
`IPR2021-00159
`Patent No. 10,098,412
`Ex. 2002
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-09230-MWF-JDE Document 82 Filed 12/30/20 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:1195
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
`Case No. CV-19-9230-MWF (JDEx)
`Date: December 30, 2020
`Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.
`Title:
`a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the
`nonmoving party.” Pinn, 2020 WL 6064642, at *1 (citation omitted).
`Plaintiff correctly argues that staying litigation is not warranted under these
`circumstances. (Opposition at 4-11).Although a trial date has not been set, the Court
`agrees with Plaintiff that significant activity has occurred and will shortly occur.
`In addition, the Court notes that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“PTAB”)has
`not yet decided whethertoinstituteinter partesreview (“IPR”) proceedings. (Motion
`at 1). A decision from the PTAB regarding whether to institute IPR proceedingsis
`severalmonths away.(Motion at 2) (“[T]he PTAB’s institution decision is expected in
`May of 2021.”). Even if the PTAB institutes IPR proceedings, this actionwill likely
`be ready for trial beforethe PTAB issues a final decision — a decision that couldthen
`be appealed.
`At the hearing, Defendant emphasized its argument that the case is still at an
`early stage in the proceedings, noting that no depositions have been taken, no expert
`reports have been submitted, and no motions have been filed.The lack of significant
`activityis an important factor to consider, but the persuasive value of this argument is
`undermined by the fact that the parties(1)have already exchanged patent contentions,
`which was scheduled to take place onDecember 23, 2020,and (2) are currently
`engagedinclaim construction, which is scheduled for a hearing on April 12, 2021. By
`the time the PTAB decides whether to institute IPR, the parties will have already made
`several exchanges and completed a claim constructionhearing.
`The Courtalso notes that Defendantwaited almost a year after it was served
`with the Complaint to file its IPR petitions. (Motion, Ex. 2(Docket No. 71-4))
`(IPR2021-00159, filed on October 30, 2020). Defendant’s delay in filing its IPR
`petitions also weighs against granting a stay. Jiaxing Super Lighting Elec. Appliance
`Co. v. MaxLite, Inc.,CV 19-4047 PSG (MAAx), 2020 WL 5079051, at *4 (C.D. Cal.
`June 17, 2020) (“Such a delay cuts against granting a stay because ‘courts expect
`accused infringers to evaluate whether to file, and then to file, IPR petitions as soon as
`possible after learning that a patent may be asserted against them.’”)(citation omitted).
`______________________________________________________________________________
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 2
`EX. 2002 - Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-09230-MWF-JDE Document 82 Filed 12/30/20 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:1196
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
`Case No. CV-19-9230-MWF (JDEx)
`Date: December 30, 2020
`Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.
`Title:
`Finally, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the simplificationof the issues here,
`ultimately, is speculative.
`Accordingly, the Motionis DENIED.
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`______________________________________________________________________________
`CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 3
`EX. 2002 - Page 3
`
`