New Motion just filed today saying case will be stayed for 90 days and that all parties believe they will settle.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
CALYPSO WIRELESS, INC., DRAGO DAIC & JIMMY WILLIAMSON, PC,
Plaintiffs-Counterclaim Defendants,
v.
T-MOBILE USA, INC., Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.
Case No. 2:08-cv-441-TJW-CE Jury Trial Demanded
EMERGENCY JOINT UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY THE CASE FOR 90 DAYS
Plaintiff Calypso Wireless, Inc. (“Calypso”) and Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”), by and through their respective attorneys, respectfully submit this Emergency Joint Unopposed Motion to Stay the Case for 90-Days. Due to impending Markman deadlines, (D.I. 132), the parties will incur significant expenses in litigating this case over the next three months. At the same time, a trial currently scheduled for November in state court will resolve the ownership dispute between the Plaintiffs over the patent-in-suit. The movants believe in good faith that a 90-day stay will permit them to resolve this case fully without further litigation, and accordingly respectfully request that the Court grant this motion for a 90-day stay, showing as follows:
Plaintiff Calypso filed this action for patent infringement against T-Mobile on November 13, 2008. (D.I. 1). The Court is already familiar with the ownership dispute over the patent-in-suit that ultimately led to joining Drago Daic and Jimmy Williamson, P.C. as plaintiffs from the parties’ prior motions and other filings. (See, e.g., D.I. 14, 36, 57, 67, 88, 89, 90, 106, 118).
The Plaintiffs are currently litigating their ownership dispute in state court in Harris County, Texas. (D.I. 111 ¶ 5). That case is scheduled to go to trial on November 15, 2010. (Ex. A (Docket)).
Under the terms of the Stipulation into which the Plaintiffs entered as part of their agreement to litigate the ownership dispute in state court, Calypso is “the party responsible for management” of this litigation “in accordance with the terms and provisions of the 2008 Agreement.” (D.I. 111 ¶ 8). Calypso has limited financial resources to litigate this case. See Ex. B (6/8/10 SEC filing). Calypso presently has the authority to license or otherwise transfer rights under the patent-in-suit to T-Mobile, subject to the provisions of the agreement between the Plaintiffs and any orders arising from the State Court Litigation. (D.I. 111 ¶¶ 7, 3 & D.I. 110-2 (Ex. B ¶ 4(a)).
In an effort to resolve this action for patent infringement without incurring significant further costs, Calypso has directly contacted executives from T-Mobile in order to engage them in negotiations regarding a potential license or other transfer of rights to the patent-in-suit, which would effectively resolve this litigation. These communications are ongoing and representatives from Calypso and T-Mobile expect to schedule a meeting promptly to explore further potential business arrangements involving the patent-in-suit. T-Mobile also agreed not to oppose Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the time to file their claim construction brief, (D.I. 168), so that settlement could be furthered and this motion for a stay filed.
At the same time, the Plaintiffs’ ownership rights to the patent-in-suit are due to be resolved in state court in November of 2010. The movants believe in good faith that discussions currently taking place between Calypso and T-Mobile, and the pending resolution of the ownership dispute in Texas state court, will permit them to resolve fully all claims and counterclaims in this action for patent infringement without further litigation.
T-Mobile joins this motion without prejudice to its pending Objections to and Motion for Reconsideration of the March 31, 2010 Order of Magistrate Judge Everingham Denying Motion to Transfer Venue to the Western District of Washington, (D.I. 150), its Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Answer to T-Mobile’s Counterclaims, (D.I. 58), and its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Failure to Prosecute, (D.I. 109). September 22, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
/s/__Anthony Miller__________ Paul V. Storm (lead counsel) State Bar. No. 19325350 Anthony P. Miller State Bar No. 24041484 Michael Leach State Bar No. 24065598
STORM LLP
