`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ZOE’S KITCHEN, INC., ET AL.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:18-CV-00407-RWS
`
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Litigation Pending Inter Partes Review of
`
`the Patent-In-Suit. Docket No. 66. Having considered the Motion, the relevant briefing and the
`
`Supplemental Notices, the Court finds that the Motion should be and hereby is GRANTED.
`
`The district court has the inherent power to control its own docket, including the power to
`
`stay proceedings. See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426–27 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Courts
`
`have inherent power to manage their dockets and stay proceedings, including the authority to order
`
`a stay pending conclusion of a PTO reexamination.”). Managing a court’s 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.
`
`Page 1 of 3
`
`Instacart, Ex. 1028
`
`
`
`Tex. Mar. 11, 2015) (citing cases). Based on those factors, courts “determine whether the benefits
`
`of a stay outweigh the inherent costs of postponing resolution of the litigation.” Id.
`
`Defendants explain that Plaintiff Fall Line previously asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748
`
`in several district court cases that are no longer pending. See, e.g., Fall Line Patents, LLC v.
`
`American Airlines Group Inc., et al., No. 6:17-cv-202-RWS, Docket No. 127 (E.D. Tex. July 9,
`
`2018). A non-party to both the previous litigations and this litigation filed a petition for inter
`
`partes review challenging all claims asserted in the previous litigations. See Docket No. 92-1.
`
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) published a Final Written Decision on April 4, 2019
`
`cancelling all challenged claims, which were all the asserted claims in the previous litigations. See
`
`id. None of the claims asserted in this litigation were challenged in that IPR or cancelled by the
`
`PTAB’s Final Written Decision. See Docket No. 69 at 2–3. However, the PTAB recently
`
`instituted Defendants’ IPR petition challenging all the asserted claims in this case. See Docket
`
`Nos. 108, 109.
`
`Having considered the factors outlined above, the Court is persuaded that the benefits of a
`
`stay outweigh the costs of postponing resolution of the litigation in this case. Here, there is only
`
`one asserted patent, the patent claims have not yet been construed by the Court and discovery is
`
`not yet complete. The PTAB has already reviewed the sole asserted patent once and found all
`
`challenged claims unpatentable. Moreover, even if the PTAB does not invalidate every challenged
`
`claim in Defendants’ petition, there is a significant likelihood that the outcome of the IPR
`
`proceedings will streamline the scope of this case to an appreciable extent.
`
` Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Docket No. 66) is GRANTED. It is therefore
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`ORDERED that the above-captioned cases are STAYED pending the PTAB’s Final
`
`Written Decision in IPR2019-00610. The parties shall file a joint status report informing the Court
`
`regarding the results of the pending IPR within ten (10) days of the last decision from the PTAB.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 3
`
`.
`
`
`
`____________________________________
`ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of August, 2019.
`
`
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
