Space Data Corporation v. Alphabet Inc.,Google LLC, and Loon LLC, 5:16-cv-03260

Space Data sued Google entities (Alphabet, Google LLC, Loon LLC) alleging infringement of four patents (’941, ’503, ’706, ’193), trade-secret misappropriation (DTSA, CUTSA), and breach of contract.
Court earlier found all asserted claims of the ’941 and ’503 patents indefinite; only the ’706 and ’193 patents remained live.
Fact discovery and expert discovery were closed; Markman claim construction was issued; summary judgment and Daubert briefing were ongoing; trial set for August 5, 2019.
PTAB instituted IPR on all asserted claims of the ’706 patent on November 7, 2018.
Google moved to stay the district-court proceedings on the ’706 patent pending IPR; Space Data opposed.
The court denied the stay, finding the case was advanced, IPR would not meaningfully simplify the broader case, and prejudice to Space Data was at best minimal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to stay district-court proceedings on the ’706 patent pending IPR	Opposed stay; prefers resolving ’706 issues with the rest of the case to avoid duplicative proceedings and reconvening witnesses	Seeks stay because PTAB expertise could invalidate or narrow claims and create estoppel, avoiding or simplifying district litigation	Denied — court found litigation advanced, simplification neutral, prejudice to plaintiff at most minimal; overall stay unwarranted
Whether parallel IPR creates risk of inconsistent outcomes or resource waste	Proceeding avoids reconvening and tries ’706 alongside other claims; staying would fragment trial	IPR could cancel/amend claims or produce estoppel, simplifying issues	Court treated simplification as neutral because ’706 is a small portion and staying could cause reconvening/wasted resources
Whether stage of litigation favors a stay	Case is late-stage: discovery closed, claim construction done, summary judgment pending, trial scheduled — stay disfavored	Argues significant remaining work justifies stay	Court held stage weighs against a stay
Whether a stay would unduly prejudice plaintiff	Plaintiff asserts potential competitive harm and inconvenience of retrying testimony	Defendant says delay is short and no concrete evidence of competitive injury	Court found plaintiff’s prejudice showing weak/negligible and treated this factor as neutral/slightly against stay

Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (district courts have inherent authority to stay proceedings pending PTO reexamination)
PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 69 F. Supp. 3d 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (sets district factors for deciding stays during PTO proceedings)