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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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).
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).
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).