- Aug. 1, 2007: CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Goodmail Systems, Inc., Return Path, Inc., and Cisco Ironport Systems, LLC, No. 1:07-cv-01822 (N.D. Ga.) (Thrash, Jr., J.) – Patent Infringement
- Aug. 6, 2007: The Coleman Company, Inc. v. Essential Gear, Inc. (d/b/a eGear), No. 1:07-cv-01851, (N.D. Ga.) (Story J.) – Patent Infringement
- Aug. 17, 2007: Cypress Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Tiber Laboratories, LLC, No. 2:07-cv-00092 (N.D. Ga.) (Story, J.) – Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity
IP Co., LLC v. Cellnet Tech., Inc., No. 1:05-CV-2658 (N.D. Ga.) (Cooper, J.)
IP Co., LLC v. Tropos Networks, Inc., No. 1:06-CV-585 (N.D. Ga.) (Cooper, J.)
Judge Cooper granted Defendant Tropos Network Inc.’s (Tropos’) Motion to Stay the Tropos litigation pending reexamination by the USPTO of the two patents-in-suit asserted by Plaintiff IP Co., LLC (IPCO). The Court also entered a stay in the Cellnet litigation, which involved allegations relating to the same two patents. In addition, Judge Cooper granted IPCO’s Motion to Consolidate the Tropos and Cellnet litigations through claim construction.
The Court found that several factors weighed in favor of granting the motion to stay. First, the circumstances surrounding the reexaminations (all of the claims of each of the patents-in-suit were being reexamined) made it likely that a stay would simplify the issues in question and trial of the case. The Court cited statistics published by the USPTO that reflect a 74 percent likelihood that at least some of the patent claims reexamined in proceedings initiated by a third party will be cancelled or amended, as evidence of the potential impact of the reexaminations on the issues to be determined.
Second, the procedural posture of the case supported entry of a stay. Because the Tropos litigation was in an early procedural stage (the parties had not exchanged disclosures or conducted any discovery), the Court determined that a stay of that case would facilitate the conservation of resources. Although the Cellnet litigation had progressed further (the parties had conducted discovery and had exchanged infringement and invalidity contentions), the Court found that a stay of would serve the interests of judicial economy by conserving the resources required to bring the Cellnet litigation to a conclusion.
Finally, the Court found that a stay would not unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to IPCO and Cellnet, the non-movants. While the Court recognized that additional delay was an undesirable result of entering a stay, the Court did not believe the parties would benefit by proceeding with the litigation in the face of the statistically significant chance that the claims of the patents-in-suit will be changed or eliminated by the reexamination proceedings. Further, the Court noted that the anticipated length of the delay is not significant because the reexamination proceedings had been pending for over twelve months and were likely to be concluded within the next eight to ten months.
