UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES
`COMPANY, LTD.,
`
`Case No. 23-cv-05792-RFL
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
`STAY CASE PENDING INTER
`PARTES REVIEW
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Re: Dkt. Nos. 169, 177, 199, 200, 212, 213,
`220, 225
`
`On January 16, 2025, Micron Technology, Inc. (“Micron”) moved to stay this case
`
`pending inter partes review (“IPR”). (Dkt. No. 200.) The motion to stay pending IPR is
`
`GRANTED. This order assumes the reader is familiar with the facts of the case, the applicable
`
`legal standard, and the arguments made by the parties.
`
`Motion to stay the case pending inter partes review. Courts consider three factors when
`
`evaluating whether to stay a case pending inter partes review: “(1) whether discovery is
`
`complete and whether a trial date has been set; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in
`
`question and trial of the case; and (3) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear
`
`tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party.” Evolutionary Intel., LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No.
`
`13-cv-04202, 2014 WL 261837, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2014). All three factors weigh in favor
`
`of granting the stay.
`
`First, the litigation is in an early stage. Fact discovery does not close until August 26,
`
`2025, and as of the date that briefing on this motion was complete, the parties had not yet taken a
`
`single deposition. (Dkt. No. 229 at 5.)1 Claim construction briefs have not yet been filed, and
`
`1 Citations to page numbers refer to the ECF pagination.
`
`1
`
`IMPERATIVE Ex. 1032
`IPR Petititon - US 11,554,005
`
`

`

`although a date is set, trial is currently scheduled for June 2026—fifteen months away.
`
`Moreover, staying the case pending IPR will simplify the issues. The Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (“PTAB”) has already instituted proceedings as to 23 Asserted Claims, and
`
`declined to institute IPR proceedings as to 11 other Asserted Claims. The PTAB’s decision
`
`regarding whether to institute proceedings as to the remaining 36 Asserted Claims is currently
`
`pending. The previously instituted and non-instituted claims are directed to the same 3D NAND
`
`technology. Four of the non-instituted claims are dependent to an instituted claim—independent
`
`claim 1 of the ’872 Patent. The other seven non-instituted claims are all from the ’342 Patent,
`
`which is directed to the same subject matter as the ’957, ’822, and ’941 Patents. Thus far, the
`
`PTAB has already instituted IPR proceedings on all of the Asserted Claims for the ’957 and ’822
`
`Patents, and the petition on the ’941 Patent is currently pending. The overlapping subject matter
`
`of these claims means that staying the case pending IPR will likely simplify infringement,
`
`validity, and claim construction issues in this case.
`
`Finally, the stay will not result in undue prejudice or disadvantage for Yangtze Memory
`
`Technologies Company (“YMTC”). YMTC argues that “[c]ompetition in the 3D NAND
`
`memory market makes any stay particularly prejudicial because of how quickly 3D NAND
`
`technology develops.” (Dkt. No. 221 at 19.) However, absent specific “evidence to substantiate
`
`an argument that direct competition will result in prejudice to the non-moving party,” YMTC’s
`
`argument cannot, on its own, justify a stay. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. GSI Tech., Inc., No.
`
`13-cv-02013, 2014 WL 5021100, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2014) (emphasis added). Nor does the
`
`fact that the PTAB’s decision regarding the remaining 36 Asserted Claims is currently pending
`
`mean that a stay is not appropriate.
`
`Conclusion. For the reasons explained above, Micron’s motion to stay the case pending
`
`IPR is granted. (Dkt. No. 200.) The following motions that are pending before the Court—the
`
`motion to dismiss and strike Micron’s amended counterclaims (Dkt. No. 177), the motion to stay
`
`discovery order pending resolution for writ of mandamus (Dkt. No. 199), and the motion to
`
`modify the case schedule to permit Micron to reassert counterclaims (Dkt. No. 213)—are denied
`
`2
`
`IMPERATIVE Ex. 1032
`IPR Petititon - US 11,554,005
`
`

`

`as moot. The administrative motions to file under seal that are pending before the Court (Dkt.
`
`Nos. 169, 212, 220, 225) are granted.
`
`The parties shall file a joint status report every six months, and shall notify the Court
`
`within 30 days of the completion of all IPR proceedings.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: March 14, 2025
`
`RITA F. LIN
`United States District Judge
`
`3
`
`IMPERATIVE Ex. 1032
`IPR Petititon - US 11,554,005
`
`