§Why CasetextPricing

Rothschild Storage Retrieval Innovations, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al

RESPONSE

26 Cited authorities

  1. Nken v. Holder

    556 U.S. 418 (2009)   Cited 3,404 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "courts must be mindful that the Government's role as the respondent in every removal proceeding does not make the public interest in each individual one negligible"

  2. Universal Electronics Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc.

    943 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (C.D. Cal. 2013)   Cited 116 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that simplification or clarification by PTAB review particularly likely "when a party has obtained PTO review of each of the asserted claims in the patents-in-suit

  3. Soverain Software LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.

    356 F. Supp. 2d 660 (E.D. Tex. 2005)   Cited 130 times
    Denying stay

  4. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. v. Apple Inc.

    Civil Action No. 1:13-CV-0633 (DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2014)   Cited 33 times

    Civil Action No. 1:13-CV-0633 (DEP) 01-15-2014 RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC., Defendant. FOR PLAINTIFFS: SKIERMONT PUCKETT LLP HESLIN ROTHENBERG FARLEY & MESITI P.C. HARRIS BEACH PLLC PAUL J. SKIERMONT, ESQ. AMY E. LaVALLE, ESQ. DONALD E. TILLER, ESQ. LENNY HUANG, ESQ. ALEXANDER E. GASSER, ESQ. NICHOLAS MESITI, ESQ. JAMES R. MULDOON, ESQ. STEVEN P. NONKES, ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT: FENWICK & WEST LLP MENTER, RUDIN & TRIVELPIECE, P.C. TERESA M. CORBIN, ESQ. HECTOR J

  5. Interwoven, Inc. v. Vertical Computer Sys., Inc.

    No. C 10-04645 RS (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2012)   Cited 30 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding first factor weighed against stay where claim construction had occurred but also emphasizing that "[d]iscovery is well underway"

  6. PI-Net Int'l, Inc. v. Focus Bus. Bank

    Case No. C-12-4958-PSG (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2013)   Cited 25 times
    Granting stay where a trial date was scheduled but significant discovery remained

  7. Segin Sys., Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co.

    30 F. Supp. 3d 476 (E.D. Va. 2014)   Cited 22 times
    In Segin, it was "difficult to predict the impact of a stay because it is completely unknown whether or not that review will occur.

  8. TPK Touch Solutions, Inc. v. Wintek Electro-Optics Corp.

    Case No. 13-cv-02218-JST (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2013)   Cited 20 times
    Denying stay pending inter partes review, observing that stay is never obligatory, but may be justified “where the outcome of the reexamination would be likely to assist the court”

  9. Sage Electrochromics Inc. v. View Inc.

    Case No. 12-cv-06441-JST (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2015)   Cited 14 times
    Finding this factor favored a stay where the parties had "exchanged documents, responded to discovery requests, litigated a discovery dispute, underwent claim construction for four patents, and briefed claim construction on the remaining five patents"

  10. Freeny v. Apple Inc.

    CASE NO. 2:13-cv-00361-WCB (E.D. Tex. Jul. 22, 2014)   Cited 9 times

    CASE NO. 2:13-cv-00361-WCB 07-22-2014 CHARLES C. FREENY III, BRYAN E. FREENY, and JAMES P. FREENY Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC., ET AL. Defendants. WILLIAM C. BRYSON MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is the defendants' Motion to Stay Litigation Pending Inter Partes Review (Dkt. No. 92). The Court DENIES the motion without prejudice to the defendants' right to refile the motion if and when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") grants the petition for inter partes review filed by defendant

  11. Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 1   Cited 15,276 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

  12. Section 315 - Relation to other proceedings or actions

    35 U.S.C. § 315   Cited 541 times   885 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the Director to consolidate separate IPRs challenging the same patent

  13. Section 141 - Appeal to Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

    35 U.S.C. § 141   Cited 455 times   90 Legal Analyses
    Imposing no such requirement

  14. Section 314 - Institution of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 314   Cited 371 times   629 Legal Analyses
    Directing our attention to the Director's decision whether to institute inter partes review "under this chapter" rather than "under this section"

  15. Section 316 - Conduct of inter partes review

    35 U.S.C. § 316   Cited 281 times   307 Legal Analyses
    Stating that "the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability"

  16. Section 319 - Appeal

    35 U.S.C. § 319   Cited 77 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Providing for appeal from a "final written decision"

  17. Section 42.107 - Preliminary response to petition

    37 C.F.R. § 42.107   Cited 93 times   56 Legal Analyses
    Requiring initiation of IPR within six months of filing and a decision within twelve months thereafter

  18. Section 42.108 - Institution of inter partes review

    37 C.F.R. § 42.108   Cited 45 times   69 Legal Analyses
    Permitting partial institution