Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. NXP USA, Inc.

S.D. California

Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. NXP USA, Inc.

DecidedJanuary 5, 2023

Docket3:22-cv-01527

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. 2023).

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-1527-BAS-KSC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 13 v. MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDING (ECF No. 19) 14 NXP USA, INC.,

15 Defendant. 16 17 Before this Court is Defendant’s unopposed motion seeking a mandatory stay of the 18 instant case under 28 U.S.C. § 1659 until the determination of the United States 19 International Trade Commission (“Commission”) in Electronic Devices, Semiconductor 20 Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1340 (“ITC Investigation 337-TA- 21 1340”), becomes final, including any appeals. (Stay Mot., ECF No. 19.) 22 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1659, “at the request of a party to the civil action that is also a 23 respondent in the proceeding before the Commission, the district court shall stay, until the 24 determination of the Commission becomes final proceedings in the civil action with respect 25 to any claim that involves the same issues involved in the proceeding before the 26 Commission.” The purpose of this mandatory stay “is to prevent separate proceedings on 27 the same issues occurring at the same time” and to avoid duplicative and inefficient 28 consumption of the court’s and the parties’ resources. In re Princo Corp., 478 F.3d 1345, 1 || 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Polmyer Tech. Sys., Inc. vy. ACON Lab’ys, Inc., No. 18-CV- 2 ||0805-H-HLB, 2018 WL 3388123, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 11, 2018) (applying stay provision). 3 The Court finds § 1659 applies here. Hence, the Court GRANTS the Stay Motion 4 ||(ECF No. 19) and STAYS this action pending final decision in ITC Investigation 337-TA- 5 || 1340. Further, the Court ORDERS the parties to file a joint status report by no later than 6 ||March 3, 2023, and to file a joint status report every six months thereafter until ITC 7 || Investigation 337-TA-1340 has concluded. The Court also ORDERS the parties to file a 8 ||joint status report within ten (10) days after the Commission issues its final decision in 9 || Investigation 337-TA-1340. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. / , 11 DATED: January 5, 2023 Lin A (Ayphan 6 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 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-1527-BAS-KSC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 13 v. MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDING (ECF No. 19) 14 NXP USA, INC.,

15 Defendant. 16 17 Before this Court is Defendant’s unopposed motion seeking a mandatory stay of the 18 instant case under 28 U.S.C. § 1659 until the determination of the United States 19 International Trade Commission (“Commission”) in Electronic Devices, Semiconductor 20 Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1340 (“ITC Investigation 337-TA- 21 1340”), becomes final, including any appeals. (Stay Mot., ECF No. 19.) 22 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1659, “at the request of a party to the civil action that is also a 23 respondent in the proceeding before the Commission, the district court shall stay, until the 24 determination of the Commission becomes final proceedings in the civil action with respect 25 to any claim that involves the same issues involved in the proceeding before the 26 Commission.” The purpose of this mandatory stay “is to prevent separate proceedings on 27 the same issues occurring at the same time” and to avoid duplicative and inefficient 28 consumption of the court’s and the parties’ resources. In re Princo Corp., 478 F.3d 1345, 1 || 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Polmyer Tech. Sys., Inc. vy. ACON Lab’ys, Inc., No. 18-CV- 2 ||0805-H-HLB, 2018 WL 3388123, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 11, 2018) (applying stay provision). 3 The Court finds § 1659 applies here. Hence, the Court GRANTS the Stay Motion 4 ||(ECF No. 19) and STAYS this action pending final decision in ITC Investigation 337-TA- 5 || 1340. Further, the Court ORDERS the parties to file a joint status report by no later than 6 ||March 3, 2023, and to file a joint status report every six months thereafter until ITC 7 || Investigation 337-TA-1340 has concluded. The Court also ORDERS the parties to file a 8 ||joint status report within ten (10) days after the Commission issues its final decision in 9 || Investigation 337-TA-1340. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. / , 11 DATED: January 5, 2023 Lin A (Ayphan 6 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 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-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack