Opinion
21 -cv-07721 -EMC
03-05-2024
ON24, INC., Plaintiff, v. WEBINAR.NET, INC., Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
DOCKET NOS. 90, 94
EDWARD M. CHEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Previously, the Court granted webinar's motion for partial summary judgment, finding in its favor that the ‘480 patent was invalid based on indefiniteness. Based on the Court's ruling, this left for trial ON24's remaining claims: (1) intentional interference with contractual relationships; (2) unfair competition in violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200; and (3) false and/or misleading representations in violation of the Lanham Act.
Judge Westmore subsequently held a settlement conference with the parties, but the case did not settle. See Docket No. 88 (minutes). ON24 then proposed a motion for interlocutory appeal on the patent claim. See Docket No. 89 (Jt. Status Rpt. at 1). Initially, webinar opposed certification. See Docket No. 89 (Jt. Status Rpt. at 2). However, it later changed its position and, thus, in January 2024, the parties filed a joint motion for certification of the patent claim for interlocutory appeal, and for a stay of the remaining claims. See Docket No. 90 (joint motion). Per the Court's request, ON24 also submitted a brief in support of the request for certification for an interlocutory appeal. See Docket No. 94 (brief).
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) governs interlocutory appeals. It provides as follows:
When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not
otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that [1] such order involves a controlling question of law [2] as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and [3] that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order. The Court of Appeals which would have jurisdiction of an appeal of such action may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to it within ten days after the entry of the order: Provided, however, That application for an appeal hereunder shall not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the Court of Appeals or a judge thereof shall so order.28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
The Court finds that the § 1292(b) factors have been met and therefore certifies its order on the patent claim for an interlocutory appeal. The Court further stays proceedings on the remaining claims pending the Federal Circuit's decision as to whether to permit an interlocutory appeal.
The parties shall file a joint status report with this Court within two weeks after the Federal Circuit's decision.
This order disposes of Docket Nos. 90 and 94.
IT IS SO ORDERED.