Featured Posts
- Facebook Loses Reexaminations of Pragmatus’ Patents
- How is Reexamination Treating Round Rock Research?
- Reexamination has not Saved Apple against MobileMedia Patents, So Far
- What is an “Involved Application” in IPR Practice?
- Apple Victorious over Affinity Labs of Texas’ Portable Audio Player Patent
- Think IP Strategy Offers 2011 News Almanac
- An Update on Oracle’s Infringement Case against Google
- PTO Requests Public Comment on Proposed Rules for AIA Post-Issuance Proceedings
- Microsoft-i4i, Oracle-Google & VirnetX-Apple-Cisco Updates
- Oracle Patent to Emerge from Reexamination
- VirnetX again Sues for Infringement, and again Faces Reexaminations
- How Strong are Google’s Requests for Reexamination of the Lodsys Patents?
- PTO Board Sides with NVIDIA on Two Rambus “Barth I” Patents
- Oracle ‘520 Moves toward Confirmation in Reexamination
- Google Gets Mixed Result against Oracle’s Seventh Patent
- Did Google Request Reexamination of Lodsys Patents?
- Two Updates
- Oracle v. Google Android® Update
- Rambus Wins Limited Exclusion Order at ITC against NVIDIA, despite Pending Reexaminations
- 最初が肝心：不備のない再審査請求書を作成するために
- That’s My Patent You’re Reexamining…
- “Why Wait for Oppositions?” by Scott Daniels, 47 IDEA 343 (Law Review of Franklin Pierce Law School)
- The Basics
Noteworthy Links
- "The Interplay between Reexaminations, Preliminary Injunctions and Stays of Litigation" - by Dennis Crouch at PATENTLYO.COM
Favorite Patent Blogs
- All Things Pros
- CAFC Alert
- FDA Law Blog
- IPWatchdog
- Patent Docs
- Patently-O
- PLI Patent Law Practice Center
- Think IP Strategy
- US Patent Post-Grant Opposition
Recent Requests
PTO Statistics
Stay Denied in Bed Rail Case
| September 9, 2009
Judge Ann Montgomery has denied the motion of the accused infringer to stay the District Court proceeding in Regalo Int’l v. DEX Prods. (D. Minn.), pending resolution of three reexaminations.
Regalo sued DEX in July 2008 for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,952,846, 7,137,158 and 7,178,184, each entitled “Mattress Hugging Bed Rail.” DEX filed requests for reexamination on June 19, 2009, against each of the patents. Shortly thereafter the PTO ordered that the three patents be reexamined. DEX moved that the District Court case be stayed pending the PTO’s resolution of the reexaminations.
Judge Montgomery has now denied that motion. She first pointed out that the reexamination requests had relied upon several references which DEX had not identified in its prior art statement. This, the Judge stated, raised “a concern about whether DEX is seeking the stay purely for tactical reasons.” The Judge also complained that “DEX offers no specific explanation of how the reexamination proceedings will simplify particular issues in this litigation.” The Judge concluded that a stay was not warranted.
A further complication to the case is a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by Regalo in August.
