Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff

34 Citing briefs

  1. NorthPeak Wireless, LLC v. 3Com Corporation et al

    MOTION to Stay Pending Reexamination of the Patents-in-Suit

    Filed July 31, 2009

    Indeed, “[t]he stay of pending litigation to enable PTO review of contested patents was one of the specified purposes of the reexamination legislation.” Patlex Corp., 758 F.2d at 606; Nanometrics, 2007 WL 627920, at *1 (a stay allows the court to take advantage of the “‘PTO’s specialized expertise to reduce costly and timely litigation’”). There is an “impressive surfeit of case law favoring stays” early in patent cases.

  2. IpLearn LLC v. Ultimate Software Group Inc.

    REPLY BRIEF re MOTION to Sever

    Filed February 9, 2012

    In any event, it appears that any prejudice caused by additional delay will be in large part compensable by money damages.”); Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594, 603 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (noting that a patent holder may recover damages from an infringer sustained while case was stayed during PTO reexamination). III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed herein, Oracle respectfully requests that the Court issue an order severing IpLearn‟s claims against Oracle and stay the litigations with respect to the remaining fourteen defendants pending the outcome of these severed claims against Oracle.

  3. Card Activation Technologies, Inc. v. Fashion Bug et al

    REPLY SUGGESTIONS to motion re MOTION to stay

    Filed December 27, 2010

    16 This is erroneous, as neither of the cases CAT relies upon for this proposition establish such a rigid application of the rule.17 Indeed, the Eastern District of Missouri has stated in applying the first-to-file rule that “the cases do not have to be identical as to parties and/or issues, but must be related [sic] that there is substantial overlap between the cases regarding the issues raised.”18 And as detailed in 15 See Defendants‟ Suggestions in Support of Motion to Stay at 13, citing Patlex v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594, 603 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 16 See CAT‟s Opposition at 5.

  4. Sky Technologies LLC v. SAP AG et al

    MOTION to Stay Pending Reexamination Appeal

    Filed November 12, 2009

    Its purpose is to “correct examiner errors” and “remove patents that never should have been granted.”3 After carefully considering Sky’s repeated arguments, three experienced patent 1 U.S. Patent Nos. 6,141,653 (“‘653 patent”), 7,162,458 (“‘458 patent”). 2 Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting 145 Cong. Rec. S13259 (statement of Sen. Hatch)). 3 In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368, 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Paflex Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594, 604 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Case 2:06-cv-00440-DF Document 305 Filed 11/12/09 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 21804 2 DM_US:22898692_9 examiners have determined that Sky’s patents should never have been granted. The Patent Office has acted to correct its mistake.

  5. EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Verizon Clinton Center Drive Corp et al

    MOTION to Stay USA Mobility, Inc.'s Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Reexamination of the Patents-in-Suit

    Filed February 20, 2009

    See, e.g., id. at *14; Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594, 606 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“The stay of pending litigation to enable PTO review of contested patents patentability

  6. Sorensen v. Phillips Plastics Corporation

    MOTION to Transfer Case or, Alternatively, to Stay Pending Patent Office Reexamination

    Filed July 23, 2008

    Nanometrics, Inc. v. Nova Measuring Instruments, Ltd., No. C 06-2252 SBA, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18785 at *11 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2007), quoting the Federal Circuit in Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594, 606 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also House Report No. 96-1307(I) at 42 concerning the reexamination legislation.

  7. Sorensen v. Informatics, Inc et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Stay the Litigation Pending the Outcome of Reexamination Proceedings and Motion for Costs and Attorney's Fees

    Filed May 9, 2008

    ; see also Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 353 F.3d 928, 936 (Fed.Cir.2003) (“[O]n remand, a stay of proceedings in the district court pending the outcome of the parallel proceedings in the PTO remains an option within the district court's discretion.”) (stated in the context of reissue proceedings for interfering patents before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences); Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594, 602-03 (Fed.Cir.1985) (recognizing judicial discretion in stay determinations for patent proceedings). NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 397 F.Supp.2d 785, 787 (E.D.Va.2005).

  8. Sorensen v. Motorola, Inc. et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re Amended MOTION to Stay The Litigation Pending The Outcome Of Reexamination Proceedings

    Filed April 24, 2008

    ; see also Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 353 F.3d 928, 936 (Fed.Cir.2003) (“[O]n remand, a stay of proceedings in the district court pending the outcome of the parallel proceedings in the PTO remains an option within the district court's discretion.”) (stated in the context of reissue proceedings for interfering patents before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences); Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594, 602-03 (Fed.Cir.1985) (recognizing judicial discretion in stay determinations for patent proceedings). NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 397 F.Supp.2d 785, 787 (E.D.Va.2005).

  9. Sorensen v. Logitech Inc. et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Stay Logitech's Notice of Motion and Motion to Stay Pending Outcome of Patent Reexamination Proceedings

    Filed April 23, 2008

    ; see also Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 353 F.3d 928, 936 (Fed.Cir.2003) (“[O]n remand, a stay of proceedings in the district court pending the outcome of the parallel proceedings in the PTO remains an option within the district court's discretion.”) (stated in the context of reissue proceedings for interfering patents before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences); Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594, 602-03 (Fed.Cir.1985) (recognizing judicial discretion in stay determinations for patent proceedings). NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 397 F.Supp.2d 785, 787 (E.D.Va.2005).

  10. Sorensen v. Sanyo North America Corporation et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Stay, 14 MOTION to Stay

    Filed April 18, 2008

    ; see also Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 353 F.3d 928, 936 (Fed.Cir.2003) (“[O]n remand, a stay of proceedings in the district court pending the outcome of the parallel proceedings in the PTO remains an option within the district court's discretion.”) (stated in the context of reissue proceedings for interfering patents before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences); Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594, 602-03 (Fed.Cir.1985) (recognizing judicial discretion in stay determinations for patent proceedings). NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 397 F.Supp.2d 785, 787 (E.D.Va.2005).