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
Facebook Motion to Stay Indacon Case Denied
| November 1, 2011
Last month Facebook persuaded its judge in Pragmatus AV. v. Facebook (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117147) to issue a reexamination stay despite the fact that Facebook’s request for reexamination had not yet been granted. Facebook has now attempted to replicate that feat in Indacon v. Facebook, but Judge John Primono of the Western District of Texas was not buying.
Where judges grant reexamination stay motions, it is generally because of the prospect of simplifying the issues for trial; and where judges deny stay motions, it is generally because of undue prejudice to the patentee. In the Indacon case, simplification from reexamination seemed unlikely to Judge Primono because “Facebook has requested review of only one of the two patents and of five of the ten claims alleged to have been infringed upon.” For the Judge, this likely failure of the reexamination to simplify the issues meant prejudice to the patentee: “Delaying the entire case for up to two years based on only one of the two patents alleged to have been infringed upon would appear to present a clear tactical disadvantage to Indacon.”
Judge Primono therefore denied Facebook’s motion without even touching on the point that the reexamination request had not been granted.
Reexamination stays are not automatic. At a minimum, an accused infringer seeking a stay must seek reexamination of a sufficient number of patent claims, so that simplification of issues is at least a realistic possibility.
