§Why CasetextPricing

Cornerstone BioPharma, Inc. et al v. Vision Pharma, LLC et al

Memorandum in Support re MOTION to Stay Action Pending Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,270,976

11 Cited authorities

  1. Landis v. North American Co.

    299 U.S. 248 (1936)   Cited 8,673 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a decision to stay proceedings "calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance"

  2. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg

    849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 662 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding the Board may not indefinitely stay an ex parte reexamination in light of parallel district court litigation via the "special dispatch" standard

  3. Gould v. Control Laser Corp.

    705 F.2d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1983)   Cited 309 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the stay of a district court patent proceeding pending reexamination of the patent in the Patent and Trademark Office was not "for such a protracted or indefinite period as to render its issuance an abuse of discretion"

  4. Xerox Corp. v. 3Com Corp.

    69 F. Supp. 2d 404 (W.D.N.Y. 1999)   Cited 157 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the case was too developed to warrant a stay, as it had been pending for two years and the parties had conducted substantial discovery, made dispositive motions, and were about to exchange expert reports

  5. Ascii Corp. v. STD Entertainment USA, Inc.

    844 F. Supp. 1378 (N.D. Cal. 1994)   Cited 146 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding stay was justified because if claims were cancelled in reexamination then the need to try the infringement issue would be eliminated

  6. Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff

    758 F.2d 594 (Fed. Cir. 1985)   Cited 134 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a stay for purposes of reexamination is within the district court's discretion

  7. Slip Track Sys., Inc. v. Metal Lite, Inc.

    159 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 82 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that order staying federal action pending outcome of proceedings before United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) was final under Moses H. Cone because "district court w[ould] have no occasion to consider [relevant issue] following the resolution of [that issue in] the PTO proceeding"

  8. Pegasus Development Corporation v. Directv, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 00-1020-GMS AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS (D. Del. May. 14, 2003)   Cited 26 times
    Deciding that by staying a highly technical case involving computer programming communication systems, "the court will gain the benefit of the PTO's particular expertise, in that all prior art presented to the court will have been first considered by that agency"

  9. L.E.A. Dynatech, Inc. v. Allina

    49 F.3d 1527 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that a forfeited argument is more readily addressed if it presents "a pure question of law"

  10. Lincoln Electric Company v. Miller Electric Mfg. Co.

    Case No. 1:06CV02981 (N.D. Ohio Sep. 7, 2007)   Cited 11 times
    Discussing PTO reexamination

  11. Section 307 - Certificate of patentability, unpatentability, and claim cancellation

    35 U.S.C. § 307   Cited 118 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Stating that “a reexamination proceeding will have the same effect as that specified in section 252 for reissued patents”