Datanet LLC v. Dropbox Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Texas
DecidedOctober 12, 2023
Docket6:22-cv-01142
StatusUnknown

This text of Datanet LLC v. Dropbox Inc. (Datanet LLC v. Dropbox Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Datanet LLC v. Dropbox Inc., (W.D. Tex. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION

DATANET LLC, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL NO. 6:22-CV-01142-OLG-DTG § DROPBOX INC., § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED § Defendant. § §

ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART DROPBOX’S MOTION TO STAY [ECF NO. 75]

Before the Court is ECF No. 75, filed on September 28, 2023, the opposed motion by Defendant Dropbox, Inc. (“Dropbox”), to stay the case pending resolution of its motion to transfer. Plaintiff Datanet LLC (“Datanet”) filed a response in opposition to the motion to stay on October 5, 2023. ECF No. 76. Dropbox’s opposed motion to transfer the case to the San Francisco Division of Northern District of California on the basis of convenience under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 has been pending since May 10, 2023. ECF No. 29. Datanet filed its opposition to the transfer motion on September 5, 2023. ECF No. 65. On the same day that Dropbox filed the instant motion to stay, fact discovery was scheduled to begin on September 28, 2023. ECF No. 27 at 4. Datanet stated in its opposition brief that since September 28, “initial disclosures have already been exchanged” in fact discovery. ECF No. 76 at 2. The Fifth Circuit and the Federal Circuit have held that resolution of a transfer motion should take “top priority” in the handling of a case by the District Court. In re Horseshoe Entm’t, 337 F.3d 429, 433 (5th Cir. 2003); In re SK hynix Inc., 835 F. App’x 600, 601 (Fed. Cir. 2021). After consideration of the parties’ arguments, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DE- NIES-IN-PART Dropbox’s Motion to Stay. The Court DENIES-IN-PART Dropbox’s request to stay the claim construction hearing and has rescheduled the claim construction hearing for No- vember 2, 2023. ECF No 77. The Court will resolve the transfer motion before that hearing. The Court, however, GRANTS-IN-PART Dropbox’s Motion and stays fact discovery until the day after the newly scheduled claim construction hearing. In conclusion, Dropbox’s motion to stay the case, ECF No. 75, is GRANTED IN PART in that the Court ORDERS that fact discovery is STAYED as of the date of this order, until the day after the claim construction hearing, which is now set for November 2, 2023, and DENIED IN PART in that the claim construction hearing will not be stayed.

SIGNED this 12th day of October, 2023. | 7 f U/, erek T. Gilli Aad United States Magistrate Judge

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

Related

In Re: Horseshoe
337 F.3d 429 (Fifth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Datanet LLC v. Dropbox Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/datanet-llc-v-dropbox-inc-txwd-2023.