Case 2:19-cv-00372-JRG Document 63 Filed 09/23/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 824
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`SPACETIME3D, INC.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00372-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`Before the Court is Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc.’s (collectively, “Samsung”) Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review (the
`
`“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 50). In the Motion, Samsung asks the Court to stay all action in the above-
`
`captioned matter pending the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) inter partes review of
`
`the patents-in-suit.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff SpaceTime3D, Inc. (“SpaceTime”) has asserted three patents against Samsung:
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,881,048 (the “’048 Patent”); 9,304,654 (the “’654 Patent”); and 9,696,868 (the
`
`“’868 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 12-14). Samsung filed three
`
`petitions for inter partes review on August 4, 2020, challenging all three Asserted Patents.1 (Dkt.
`
`No. 50 at 2). The PTAB will likely begin issuing its institution decisions in February 2021. (Id.).
`
`The district court has the inherent power to control its own docket, including the power to
`
`stay proceedings. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). How to best manage the court’s
`
`
`1 IPR2020-01417; IPR2020-01418; IPR2020-01419.
`
`IPR PETITION
`US RE48,371
`Amazon Ex. 1042
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00372-JRG Document 63 Filed 09/23/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 825
`
`docket “calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an
`
`even balance.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936).
`
`“District courts typically consider three factors when determining whether to grant a stay
`
`pending inter partes review of a patent in suit: (1) whether the stay will unduly prejudice the
`
`nonmoving party, (2) whether the proceedings before the court have reached an advanced stage,
`
`including whether discovery is complete and a trial date has been set, and (3) whether the stay will
`
`likely result in simplifying the case before the court.” NFC Techs. LLC v. HTC Am., Inc., Case No.
`
`2:13-cv-1058-WCB, 2015 WL 1069111, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015) (Bryson, J.). “Based on
`
`th[ese] factors, courts determine whether the benefits of a stay outweigh the inherent costs of
`
`postponing resolution of the litigation.” Id.
`
`Where a motion to stay is filed before the PTAB institutes any proceeding, courts often
`
`withhold a ruling pending action on the petition by the PTAB or deny the motion without prejudice
`
`to refiling in the event that the PTAB institutes a proceeding. VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com,
`
`Inc., 759 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Checkfree Corp. v. Metavante Corp., No. 12-
`
`cv-15, 2014 WL 466023, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2014)); see also NFC Techs., 2015 WL
`
`1069111, at *6. Indeed, this Court has a consistent practice of denying motions to stay when the
`
`PTAB has yet to institute post-grant proceedings. Trover Group, Inc. v. Dedicated Micros USA,
`
`No. 2:13-cv-1047-WCB, 2015 WL 1069179, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015) (Bryson, J.) (“This
`
`Court’s survey of cases from the Eastern District of Texas shows that when the PTAB has not yet
`
`acted on a petition for inter partes review, the courts have uniformly denied motions for a stay.”).
`
`Considering these circumstances, the Court concludes that the Samsung’s motion is
`
`premature, and a stay of these proceedings in advance of the PTAB’s decision on whether or not
`
`to institute inter partes review of any of the Asserted Patents should be denied. Accordingly, the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00372-JRG Document 63 Filed 09/23/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 826
`
`Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling of the same, which shall be permitted
`
`within fourteen (14) days following the PTAB’s institution decision regarding the last of the
`
`patents-in-suit to be acted upon by the PTAB.
`
`
`
`3
`
`.
`
`____________________________________
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 22nd day of September, 2020.
`
`