STS Software Systems, Ltd. v. Witness Systems, Inc., No. 1:04-cv-02111 (N.D. Ga., Jan. 23, 2008) (Story, J.)
Judge Story denied the Defendant’s Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination of the Patents-in-Suit. The reexamination was filed in September, 2007 by Defendant’s parent company. In November, 2007, the USPTO granted reexamination of the ten asserted claims of the patents-in-suit. The Defendant argued that the reexamination would simplify the issues for trial by taking advantage of the USPTO’s expertise in examining patents and avoid the potential for duplicative proceedings. The Plaintiff countered that because the litigation had been pending for nearly four years and the trial was set to begin in March, 2008, a stay would substantially prejudice the Plaintiff and fail to conserve judicial resources. After reviewing the parties' contentions, Judge Story held that, although “the proposed stay is attractive, based upon the long history of the case,” a stay would not serve the ends of justice.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Renewed Motion to Stay Pending Rexamination of Patent-in-Suit Denied
Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Rioux Vision, Inc. (N.D. Ga., Jan. 7, 2008) (Thrash, Jr., J.)
Judge Thrash denied the Defendant Rioux Vision, Inc.’s (“Rioux’s”) Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination of the Patent-in-Suit. This was Rioux’s second attempt to stay the proceedings based on an inter partes reexamination filed by Rioux after commencement of the present action. The Court denied Rioux’s original Motion to Stay on September 11, 2007, before the USPTO had acted on Rioux’s request for reexamination, in part because it was not persuaded by Rioux’s speculative arguments as to what the USPTO might do in the event a reexamination was granted.
Rioux renewed its Motion to Stay after the USPTO issued an order in November, 2007 granting Rioux’s reexamination request and rejecting the claims of the patent-in-suit on the basis of obviousness. Rioux contended that the actions of the USPTO altered the underlying facts on which the Court relied in denying Rioux’s original motion. In response, the Plaintiff argued that because discovery was nearly complete and the trial schedule was already set, the Court should deny Rioux’s request for a stay and allow the parties to proceed to trial.
Upon considering “the stage of the proceedings of this litigation, the potential prejudice to the Plaintiff of a lengthy period of delay during the reexamination process and the marginal efficiency gained by a stay,” the Court concluded that a stay of the proceedings was inappropriate.
Judge Thrash denied the Defendant Rioux Vision, Inc.’s (“Rioux’s”) Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination of the Patent-in-Suit. This was Rioux’s second attempt to stay the proceedings based on an inter partes reexamination filed by Rioux after commencement of the present action. The Court denied Rioux’s original Motion to Stay on September 11, 2007, before the USPTO had acted on Rioux’s request for reexamination, in part because it was not persuaded by Rioux’s speculative arguments as to what the USPTO might do in the event a reexamination was granted.
Rioux renewed its Motion to Stay after the USPTO issued an order in November, 2007 granting Rioux’s reexamination request and rejecting the claims of the patent-in-suit on the basis of obviousness. Rioux contended that the actions of the USPTO altered the underlying facts on which the Court relied in denying Rioux’s original motion. In response, the Plaintiff argued that because discovery was nearly complete and the trial schedule was already set, the Court should deny Rioux’s request for a stay and allow the parties to proceed to trial.
Upon considering “the stage of the proceedings of this litigation, the potential prejudice to the Plaintiff of a lengthy period of delay during the reexamination process and the marginal efficiency gained by a stay,” the Court concluded that a stay of the proceedings was inappropriate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)