# AbCellera Biologics Inc. v. Berkeley Lights, Inc. > District Court, N.D. California · August 26, 2021 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10068768 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** August 26, 2021 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10068768 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 12 ABCELLERA BIOLOGICS INC, et al., Case No. 20-CV-08624-LHK 13 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY CASE PENDING INTER 14 v. PARTES REVIEW 15 BERKELEY LIGHTS, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 103 16 Defendant. 17 18 Before the Court is Defendant Berkeley Lights, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Stay Case 19 Pending Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) filed on July 25, 2021. ECF No. 103 (“Mot.”). Defendant 20 states that it has timely filed three petitions for IPRs with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board 21 (“PTAB”) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office challenging nearly all the asserted claims of 22 three patents-in-suit as invalid. Id. at 2. Plaintiff AbCellera Biologics Inc. (“Plaintiff”) opposed 23 on August 5, 2021. ECF No. 114. Defendant filed a reply on August 12, 2021. ECF No. 118. 24 Having considered the parties’ submissions, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court 25 GRANTS Defendant’s motion and STAYS the instant case until resolution of the IPRs. 26 The power to stay proceedings in a case is a matter within the Court's discretion. 27 See Good v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 5 F. Supp. 2d 804, 806 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (citing Landis v. 1 Am. Water Works & Elec. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936)). “Courts have inherent power to 2 manage their dockets and stay proceedings, including the authority to order a stay pending 3 conclusion of a PTO reexamination.” Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1032, 1035 4 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (quoting Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426–27 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). 5 Courts have recognized “a liberal policy in favor of granting motions to stay proceedings pending 6 the outcome of USPTO reexamination or reissuance proceedings.” Id. (citation omitted). 7 Courts consider three factors when determining whether to grant a stay pending IPR. The 8 first factor is whether the litigation has progressed significantly enough for a stay to be disfavored. 9 See AT&T Intellectual Prop. I v. Tivo, Inc., 774 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1052 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (granting 10 stay where parties had not exchanged expert reports and court had not held claim construction 11 hearing). Here, the parties have not yet filed any of their claim construction briefs, which 12 demonstrates that the case is still in its early stages. ECF No. 99 (“Case Management Order”). 13 Additionally, the parties are still at the beginning of fact discovery. According to Defendant, 14 Plaintiff had produced only 261 documents as of August 5, 2021. ECF No. 118-1. 15 The second factor is whether granting a stay could simplify the litigation. Finjan, 139 F. 16 Supp. 3d at 1035 (citation omitted). “A stay may also be granted in order to avoid inconsistent 17 results . . . or avoid needless waste of judicial resources.” Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Apple, 18 Inc., 2014 WL 93954, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2014). Here, Plaintiff has asserted seven patents, 19 including U.S. Patent No. 10,087,408 and two related patents (“the ’408 family”). Because the 20 pending IPRs could result in invalidation of all the asserted claims of the ’408 family, the second 21 factor weighs in favor of a stay. Although the PTAB has not yet instituted the IPRs, courts 22 routinely stay lawsuits pending institution decisions. PersonalWeb Tech., LLC v. Apple Inc., 69 F. 23 Supp. 3d 1022, 1027 (N.D. Cal. 2014). 24 Finally, the third factor—whether a stay prejudices Plaintiff or gives Defendant a clear 25 tactical advantage—does not weigh against a stay at this early litigation stage. Id. at 1029 26 (collecting cases for proposition that “delay necessarily inherent in any stay” does not constitute 27 undue prejudice). Moreover, Defendant filed its motion to stay just two weeks after filing its IPR 1 petitions, and there is no evidence of gamesmanship on Defendant’s part. See Mot. at 3. 2 Therefore, the Court, in its discretion, hereby STAYS the case until the Court orders 3 otherwise. The parties shall inform the Court within two business days of the PTAB’s completion 4 of the three IPRs. The Clerk shall administratively close the file. This is a purely administrative 5 procedure that does not affect the rights of the parties. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: August 26, 2021 9 ______________________________________ LUCY H. KOH 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10068768. Public record. Not legal advice.