San Francisco Technology, Inc. v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Opposition to Motions to Stay re MOTION to Dismiss; Motion to Stay;

N.D. Cal.March 18, 2010

M O U N T & S T O E LK E R , P .C . R IV E R PA R K T O W E R, S U IT E 1 65 0 3 33 W E S T S A N C A R LO S S T R E E T SA N J O S E, C A LI F O R N IA 9 51 10 -2 74 0 T E LE P H O N E (4 08 ) 2 79 -7 00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Kathryn G. Spelman, Esq. (Cal. Bar No. 154512) Daniel H. Fingerman, Esq. (Cal. Bar No. 229683) Mount & Stoelker, P.C. RiverPark Tower, Suite 1650 333 West San Carlos Street San Jose CA 95110-2740 Phone: (408) 279-7000 Fax: (408) 998-1473 Email: kspelman@mount.com, dfingerman@mount.com Attorneys for San Francisco Technology Inc. United States District Court Northern District of California, San Francisco Division San Francisco Technology Inc. Plaintiff vs. Adobe Systems Incorporated, The Brita Products Company, Delta Faucet Company, Evans Manufacturing Inc., The Evercare Company, Graphic Packaging International Inc., Magnum Research Inc., Pavestone Company LP, The Procter & Gamble Company, S.C. Johnson & Son Inc., Spectrum Brands Inc., Super Swim Corp., Unilock Inc., West Coast Chain Mfg. Co. Defendants Case No. 5:09-cv-06083-RS Plaintiff's Opposition to Motions To Stay Date: April 8, 2010 Time: 1:30 pm Room: Courtroom 3, 17th Floor Judge: Richard Seeborg Case5:09-cv-06083-RS Document164 Filed03/18/10 Page1 of 3 Case No. 5:09-cv-06083-RS Page 1 Plaintiff's Opposition to Motions To Stay M O U N T & S T O E LK E R , P .C . R IV E R PA R K T O W E R, S U IT E 1 65 0 3 33 W E S T S A N C A R LO S S T R E E T SA N J O S E, C A LI F O R N IA 9 51 10 -2 74 0 T E LE P H O N E (4 08 ) 2 79 -7 00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff San Francisco Technology Inc. ("SF Tech") submits this consolidated opposition to the motions filed by several defendants which seek a stay of this case.1 These motions are opposed in a single brief because they raise identical issues. Most of the defendants have already moved to dismiss th case by challenging SF Tech's standing. For the reasons explained in SF Tech's con olidated opposition to those motions, they are doomed to be denied under the great weight of authority. Although it is true that the Federal Circuit will squarely address the standing question for the first time in the appeal of Stauffer v. Brooks Brothers, the Federal Circuit has already implicitly blessed qui tam standing under the false marking statute in dicta.2 The great weight of authority supports the holdings by the District Courts in Pequignot v. Solo Cup and Harrington v. CIBA Vision Corp. that qui tam plaintiffs do have standing to bring claims for false marking.3 There is always an appeal pending in one or another Circuit Court that may affect many cases in the District Courts. However, the District Courts do not routinely stop their business of hearing cases. If stays were granted each time such an appeal is pending, no case could ever be tried. When the Federal Circuit announced its decision to rehear en banc the appeal in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa,4 it was widely expected that the court would fundamentally rewrite the law pertaining to design patents. Although some parties requested stays in pending suits for design patent infringement, SF Tech is unaware that any such stay was granted. Similarly, when the Supreme Court granted certiorari in KSR v. Teleflex,5 it was widely expected that the court would fundamentally rewrite the law of patent obviousness. In both instances, the District Courts and parties were aware that their work might, at the very l ast, have to be duplicated at considerable expense after the higher court's ruling. Still, the District Courts continued their business of hearing patent cases. This court should not stay this case while the Stauffer and Pequignot appeals are pending, in the faint hope that the Federal Circuit will set aside a large body of good law. SF Tech is entitled o 1 Docket Nos. 114 (lead motion) and 100, 104, 106, 118, 24, 134, 135, 142 2 Forest Group Inc. v. Bon Tool Co., 590 F.3d 1295, 1303–1304 (Fed. Cir. 2009) 3 Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 26020 (E.D. Va. 2009) ("Pequignot 2"); Harrington v. CIBA Vision Corp., Western District of North Carolina, Case 3:08-cv-251-FDW (Request For Judicial Notice Exhibit K at pge 8) 4 Egyptian Goddess Inc. v. Swisa Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) 5 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) Case5:09-cv-06083-RS Document164 Filed03/18/10 Page2 of 3 Case No. 5:09-cv-06083-RS Page 2 Plaintiff's Opposition to Motions To Stay M O U N T & S T O E LK E R , P .C . R IV E R PA R K T O W E R, S U IT E 1 65 0 3 33 W E S T S A N C A R LO S S T R E E T SA N J O S E, C A LI F O R N IA 9 51 10 -2 74 0 T E LE P H O N E (4 08 ) 2 79 -7 00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 timely relief, without undue delay. Accordingly, the defendants' motions to stay should be denied. Date: March 18, 2010 Mount & Stoelker, P.C., /s/ Dan Fingerman Attorneys for San Francisco Technology Inc. Certificate of Service The undersigned certifies that on March 18, 2010, the foregoing document was filed with the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, using the court's electronic filing system (ECF), in compliance with Civil L.R. 5-4 and General Order 45. The ECF system serves a "Notice of Electronic Filing" to all parties and counsel who have appeared in this action, who have consented under Civil L.R. 5-5 and General O der 45 to accept that Notice as service of this document. Date: March 18, 2010 Mount & Stoelker, P.C., /s/ Dan Fingerman Attorneys for San Francisco Technology Inc. Z:\CLIENTS\F CLIENTS\FALSE001\Attorney_Notes\Drafts\Opposition to stay motions.doc Case5:09-cv-06083-RS Document164 Filed03/18/10 Page3 of 3