`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00115-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`The Court issues this Order sua sponte. The Court hereby SEVERS the below claims into
`
`
`
`a new, separate cause of action:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 9,516,127 Claims 24, 33, 42
`• U.S. Patent No. 10,091,734 Claims 24, 33, 42
`• U.S. Patent No. 10,039,029 Claims 1, 7, 12
`• U.S. Patent No. 9,608,968 Claims 1, 3, 5, 20
`• U.S. Patent No. 9,712,476 Claims 1, 33, 43
`• U.S. Patent No. 9,769,176 Claims 1, 5, 8, 14
`• U.S. Patent No. 10,110,534 Claims 1, 9, 11
`• U.S. Patent No. 10,135,771 Claims 1, 14, 26, 28, 30
`• U.S. Patent No. 9,648,557 Claims 1, 14
`
`It is ORDERED that the severed action is STAYED pending a resolution in the inter
`
`partes review proceedings instituted against these claims. A district court has broad discretion to
`
`sever any claim against any party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; In re Rolls Royce Corp., 775 F.3d 671, 680
`
`(5th Cir. 2014). If severance is warranted, a court may stay those claims pending resolution of the
`
`non severed claims. Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay
`
`proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the
`
`causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants .”).
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1037, Page 000001
`IPR2021-01319 (Netflix, Inc. v. CA, Inc.)
`
`
`
`Three factors guide this determination : “(1) whether a stay will unduly prejudice or present a clear
`
`tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving party; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question
`
`and trial of the case; and (3) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial has been set.”
`
`Microlinc, LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 2:07-CV-488TJW, 2010 WL 3766655, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Sept.
`
`20, 2010). In light of the extensive progression of this case—the pretrial conference is less than a
`
`month away and jury selection is less than six weeks away—the remaining claims will continue to
`
`be ACTIVE in the above-captioned case:
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 9,438,550 Claims 1, 15, 18
`• U.S. Patent No. 9,712,476 Claims 13, 23
`
`The upcoming pretrial conference, scheduled for 9:00 am CT on October 13, 2020, will
`
`focus only on the severed claims remaining in the above-captioned case. The parties are each
`
`ORDERED to file a Status Report informing the Court of the current status of all pending
`
`dispositive motions, Daubert motions, motions to strike, and/or motions in limine which might be
`
`impacted by this severance by 5:00 pm CT on Thursday, September 24, 2020.
`
`In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Apple Inc.’s Motion to Stay
`
`Pending Determination of Inter Partes Review of the Patents-in-Suit. (Dkt. No. 287.)
`
`The Clerk of the Court should note that this case remains ACTIVE.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`.
`
`____________________________________
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 22nd day of September, 2020.
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1037, Page 000002
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
