`
`PEARSON, J.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`CASE NO. 4:24CV0118
`
`JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
`
`ORDER
`[Resolving ECF No. 10]
`
`)))))))))
`
`ALTRONIC LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MOTORTECH GMBH, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Pending is Defendant MOTORtech Gmbh’s (“MOTORtech”) Motion to Stay Pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1659(a) (ECF No. 10), filed on February 26, 2024. Counsel for Plaintiff Altronic
`
`LLC has informed MOTORtech that Plaintiff does not oppose a stay of all proceedings in the
`
`above-entitled action alleging patent infringement. See ECF No. 10 at PageID #: 66-67, ¶ 7. For
`
`good cause shown, the motion is granted.
`
`On January 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the United States International
`
`Trade Commission (“ITC”) under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1337,
`
`against MOTORtech and its affiliate MotorTech Americas, LLC, alleging they have infringed
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,401,603 (“the Asserted Patent”). See 89 Fed. Reg. 11314-01, 2024 WL
`
`582276 (Feb. 14, 2024).
`
`Nine days later, Plaintiff filed the Complaint (ECF No. 1) in the case at bar. As with its
`
`ITC complaint, Plaintiff alleges that MOTORtech has infringed the Asserted Patent. See ECF
`
`No. 1 at PageID #: 1, ¶ 2. The Complaint also names as Defendants Jane or John Does,
`
`Exhibit 1019
`MOTORTECH v. Altronic - IPR2025-00398
`Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`Case: 4:24-cv-00118-BYP Doc #: 13 Filed: 03/26/24 2 of 3. PageID #: 72
`
`(4:24CV0118)
`
`unidentified entities that Plaintiff “may add” after obtaining discovery. ECF No. 1 at PageID #:
`
`2, ¶ 5.1 The Complaint’s claim of infringement of the Asserted Patent is the only count
`
`pleaded. See ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 6-9, ¶¶ 31-37.
`
`On February 8, 2024, the ITC instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1390 (the “1390
`
`Investigation”) based on Plaintiff’s complaint. The ITC’s Notice of Institution names
`
`MOTORtech as a Respondent in the 1390 Investigation.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a), a stay of all proceedings in the case at bar is required.
`
`That statute provides that a party in a civil action that is also a party to a proceeding before the
`
`ITC under section 337 may request a mandatory stay of the civil action within “30 days after the
`
`party is named as a respondent” in the ITC proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a). Upon such a
`
`request, the district court must stay proceedings in the civil action “with respect to any claim that
`
`involves the same issues involved” in the ITC investigation until the ITC’s determination in the
`
`investigation “becomes final.” Id.
`
`Accordingly Defendant MOTORtech Gmbh’s Motion to Stay (ECF No. 10) is granted.
`
`All proceedings in the case at bar are stayed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a) pending a final
`
`determination by the ITC as to the Asserted Patent, including as to any appeals. Within 14 days
`
`of when the ITC’s determination in the 1390 Investigation becomes final, the parties shall file a
`
`1 The Court exercises its inherent authority to stay the proceedings as to these
`unidentified parties. See DSM Desotech, Inc. v. Momentive Specialty Chemicals, Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-70, 2017 WL 11634919, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 6, 2017) (staying civil action
`under § 1659(a) and, as to party not named as a respondent in parallel ITC investigation,
`under the court’s inherent authority) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55
`(1936)).
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 1019
`MOTORTECH v. Altronic - IPR2025-00398
`Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`Case: 4:24-cv-00118-BYP Doc #: 13 Filed: 03/26/24 3 of 3. PageID #: 73
`
`(4:24CV0118)
`
`Joint Status Report informing the Court of the result and the effect of the proceedings upon the
`
`claims in the present case. The case is administratively closed, subject to reopening upon written
`
`motion. No claims or defenses, including lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, are
`
`waived as a result of the stay. A written motion to reopen, preferably joint, shall set forth a
`
`proposed schedule for the case going forward.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
` March 26, 2024
`Date
`
` /s/ Benita Y. Pearson
`Benita Y. Pearson
`United States District Judge
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 1019
`MOTORTECH v. Altronic - IPR2025-00398
`Page 3 of 3
`
`