Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. NXP USA, Inc.

S.D. California

Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. NXP USA, Inc.

DecidedJune 22, 2022

Docket3:22-cv-00594

StatusUnknown

This text of Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. NXP USA, Inc. (Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. NXP USA, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. NXP USA, Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BELL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC, Case No. 22-cv-0594-BAS-KSC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO STAY (ECF No. 32) AND REQUIRING INTERIM 14 NXP USA, INC., STATUS REPORTS 15 Defendant.

17 Before the Court is a joint motion to stay this patent action in light of parallel 18 proceedings at the International Trade Commission. (ECF No. 32.) In both this case and 19 before the ITC, Plaintiff Bell Semiconductor is asserting a single patent against Defendant 20 NXP USA. (Compl.; Mot. Ex. 1, ECF No. 32-1.) On June 7, 2022, the ITC instituted a 21 parallel proceeding in Certain Electronic Devices And Semiconductor Devices With 22 Timing-Aware Dummy Fill And Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-1319. 23 (Mot. Ex. 2, ECF No. 32-2.) 24 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1659, “at the request of a party to the civil action that is also a 25 respondent in the proceeding before the Commission, the district court shall stay, until the 26 determination of the Commission becomes final, proceedings in the civil action with 27 respect to any claim that involves the same issues involved in the proceeding before the 28 Commission.” The purpose of this mandatory stay “is to prevent separate proceedings on | same issues occurring at the same time” and to avoid duplicative and inefficient 2 || consumption of the court’s and parties’ resources. In re Princo Corp., 478 F.3d 1345, 1355 3 ||(Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Polymer Tech. Sys., Inc. v. ACON Lab’ys, Inc., No. 18-CV- 4 ||00805-H-JLB, 2018 WL 3388123, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 11, 2018) (applying stay 5 || provision). 6 The Court finds § 1659 applies here. Hence, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint 7 |}motion (ECF No. 32) and STAYS this action pending the final decision in ITC 8 || Investigation No. 337-TA-1319. Further, the Court ORDERS the parties to file a joint 9 || status report no later than December 21, 2022, and to file a joint status report every six 10 months thereafter until ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1319 has concluded. The Court also 11 |} ORDERS the parties to file a joint status report within ten (10) days after the ITC issues 12 final decision in Investigation No. 337-TA-1319. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 A , 15 || DATED: June 21, 2022 (Yin A (Lyohan. 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BELL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC, Case No. 22-cv-0594-BAS-KSC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO STAY (ECF No. 32) AND REQUIRING INTERIM 14 NXP USA, INC., STATUS REPORTS 15 Defendant.

17 Before the Court is a joint motion to stay this patent action in light of parallel 18 proceedings at the International Trade Commission. (ECF No. 32.) In both this case and 19 before the ITC, Plaintiff Bell Semiconductor is asserting a single patent against Defendant 20 NXP USA. (Compl.; Mot. Ex. 1, ECF No. 32-1.) On June 7, 2022, the ITC instituted a 21 parallel proceeding in Certain Electronic Devices And Semiconductor Devices With 22 Timing-Aware Dummy Fill And Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-1319. 23 (Mot. Ex. 2, ECF No. 32-2.) 24 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1659, “at the request of a party to the civil action that is also a 25 respondent in the proceeding before the Commission, the district court shall stay, until the 26 determination of the Commission becomes final, proceedings in the civil action with 27 respect to any claim that involves the same issues involved in the proceeding before the 28 Commission.” The purpose of this mandatory stay “is to prevent separate proceedings on | same issues occurring at the same time” and to avoid duplicative and inefficient 2 || consumption of the court’s and parties’ resources. In re Princo Corp., 478 F.3d 1345, 1355 3 ||(Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Polymer Tech. Sys., Inc. v. ACON Lab’ys, Inc., No. 18-CV- 4 ||00805-H-JLB, 2018 WL 3388123, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 11, 2018) (applying stay 5 || provision). 6 The Court finds § 1659 applies here. Hence, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint 7 |}motion (ECF No. 32) and STAYS this action pending the final decision in ITC 8 || Investigation No. 337-TA-1319. Further, the Court ORDERS the parties to file a joint 9 || status report no later than December 21, 2022, and to file a joint status report every six 10 months thereafter until ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1319 has concluded. The Court also 11 |} ORDERS the parties to file a joint status report within ten (10) days after the ITC issues 12 final decision in Investigation No. 337-TA-1319. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 A , 15 || DATED: June 21, 2022 (Yin A (Lyohan. 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. NXP USA, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-semiconductor-llc-v-nxp-usa-inc-casd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack