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
When Should a Stay be Lifted?
| September 1, 2010
The reexamination process concludes with the PTO issuing a “Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate” (a NIRC). About three months pass, and then the PTO issues the actual reexamination certificate. If the patent has been involved in a law suit that has been stayed pending completion of the reexamination, the patentee typically waits until receipt of the reexamination certificate (assuming that it has been successful in the reexamination), to apply to the court to lift the stay.
In her recent decision in JAB Distributors, LLC v. London Luxury, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88806 (N.D. Ill. June 29, 2010), Judge Amy J. St. Eve concluded that the patentee need not wait for the certificate to issue; rather, the NIRC date may be the appropriate date to resume the litigation.
There, Judge St. Eve had stayed the case for the reexamination, citing the lack of prejudice to the patentee, likely simplification of the issues, and reduction of litigation burdens. The PTO later issued a NIRC, and the patentee petitioned the court to lift the stay. Judge St. Eve did so, even though the reexamination certificate had not yet issued.
She explained that the original justification for the stay no longer existed. “Because the PTO is unlikely to reconsider its reexamination decision and subsequently simplify the issues or reduce the burden of litigation, staying the case is no longer appropriate.” Judge St. Eve cited the wording of the NIRC that prosecution is “closed” and that a reexamination certificate “will be issued.” Although the PTO retains jurisdiction over the reexamination until the certificate issues, the PTO is unlikely to change its decision regarding the validity of the claims.
