`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.
`and ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`TCL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO.,
`LTD., ET AL.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`ORDER
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP
`
`Before the Court is the Motion for a Discretionary Stay (Dkt. No. 37) and the Motion for
`
`Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Discretionary Stay (Dkt. No. 53) both filed by Plaintiffs
`
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies ULC (together, “AMD”). In its motion
`
`seeking a stay, AMD argues this case as it relates to Defendant Realtek Semiconductor
`
`Corp. should be stayed until final determination by the International Trade Commission in the
`
`parallel proceeding before
`
`the ITC, which
`
`is Investigation No. 337-TA-1318 (“ITC
`
`Proceeding”).1
`
`AMD argues that the remainder of the case should be stayed given that all of the
`
`Defendants in this case, including Realtek, are parties to the ITC Proceeding and four of the five
`
`patents in this suit are at issue in the ITC Proceeding. Dkt. No. 37 at 3-4. Thus, AMD argues
`
`that, because the suit is in its infancy and it is not seeking an indefinite stay, there is
`
`minimal prejudice to Realtek. Dkt. No. 37 at 6. Furthermore, AMD argues that staying the case
`
`would increase judicial efficiency by minimizing wasted time and effort.
`
`1 All the other Defendants, collectively the TCL Defendants, moved for a stay of this case as to them, Dkt. No. 36,
`which the Court granted. Dkt. No. 44.
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 65 Filed 09/12/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1025
`
`Realtek responds by arguing that AMD’s stay is an effort to ensure a second
`
`opportunity
`
`to argue
`
`infringement
`
`if
`
`it
`
`is not successful
`
`in
`
`the ITC Proceeding:
`
`“[p]resumably, AMD will need to maintain consistency in its infringement theories as between
`
`two cases that are being litigated in parallel, rather than litigating in the ITC first and then
`
`advancing modified theories in the district court after the ITC proceeding has concluded.” Dkt.
`
`No. 43 at 10. Furthermore, by AMD’s refusal to be bound by the outcome of the ITC
`
`Proceeding, Realtek argues that the ITC Proceeding will not lead to a simplification of the issues
`
`and cause Realtek to waste time and effort when AMD relitigates the issues in this case.
`
`The Court finds that staying this case would promote judicial efficiency. Although it is true
`
`that decisions of the ITC are not binding under the principles of collateral estoppel or res judicata,
`
`the “decision of an administrative agency may be given preclusive effect in a federal court when,
`
`as [in an ITC proceeding], the agency acted in a judicial capacity.” Texas Instruments Inc. v.
`
`Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 90 F.3d 1558, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Thus, allowing the
`
`ITC Proceeding to reach finality will promote judicial efficiency because the Court could
`
`be guided by the ITC’s final decision instead of having to rehear all the issues regarding four of
`
`the five asserted patents.
`
`Further weighing in favor of staying the case is the fact that the case has been stayed
`
`against the other defendants by agreement. Going forward with the claims only against a single
`
`defendant creates a significant likelihood of having to repeat many of the same functions when
`
`the ITC proceeding has concluded.
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 65 Filed 09/12/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1026
`
`
`
`Finally, Realtek requests that the claims of infringement of the patent not at issue in
`
`the ITC Proceeding go forward. Because the ITC Proceeding and the Court might issue
`
`inconsistent findings on common issues among all of the patents in suit, the Court again finds
`
`that staying the whole case promotes judicial efficiency.
`
`In sum, the Court finds Realtek’s arguments opposing a stay to be unpersuasive.
`
`Therefore, to promote judicial efficiency, the Court GRANTS the motion to stay (Dkt. No. 37)
`
`and DENIES AS MOOT the motion for a hearing (Dkt. No. 53). It is therefore ORDERED
`
`that the above-captioned case be stayed in its entirety until final resolution of Investigation No.
`
`337-TA-1318. It is further ORDERED that the parties to file a joint notice within 30 days from
`
`the resolution of ITC Proceeding. In the joint notice, the parties are to inform the Court of the
`
`outcome of the ITC Proceeding and whether the stay should be lifted in this case.
`
`
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
