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
PATENTEE’S REQUEST FOR STAY DENIED
| March 23, 2010
The judges of the Northern District of California are commonly expected to stay patent cases pending completion of reexamination proceedings. It is also expected that a patentee’s request to stay will be granted.
Judge Claudia Wilken confounded both expectations earlier this month by denying a stay in Optimumpath, L.L.C. v. Belkin Int’l, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25480 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2010). The patentee had requested that its infringement case be halted until completion of an inter partes reexamination begun in October 2008.
Judge Wilken began her analysis by noting that discovery was still in its early stages. On the other hand, the reexamination would be unlikely to simplify the issues since the PTO had refused to reexamine three of the claims asserted by the patentee in the law suit. Moreover, three of the accused infringers were not parties to the reexamination and thus would not be estopped from restating the prior art defenses presented in the reexamination.
With respect to prejudice, Judge Wilken acknowledged the interest of the accused infringers in obtaining speeding resolution of the litigation, to avoid the accumulation of substantial damages that might result from a long stay. She also found that a stay would increase the likelihood of a loss of evidence.
Judge Wilken therefore concluded that a balancing of factors required denial of the stay, despite the fact that the request had been made by the patentee.
