Stays

Judge Albright denied one defendant’s motion to stay pending IPR, but granted the other, explaining that that he did so in that case because that defendant “is subject to the full scope of estoppel under § 315(e), and the Court noted that the factors in that case “only just” weigh in favor of a stay.”

Judge Albright concluded that (1) DoDots’ claims of infringement against the Defendants hinge on their sale of a manufacturer’s products; (2) the Defendants have agreed to be bound by the outcomes of the claims against the manufacturer; and (3) the manufacturer is the only source of the accused products.  The court stayed the claims, except for the limited purpose of allowing discovery against the defendants, pending resolution of the case against the manufacturer.

Judge Albright denied the plaintiff’s motion to stay the case pending resolution of its IPRs against the defendant, finding that none of the factors weighed in favor of a stay.

Judge Albright denied the motion to stay, finding that none of the factors weighed in favor of a stay.

It’s not as confusing as it sounds – the plaintiff was seeking to stay based on IPRs it had filed against the patents that the defendant had asserted in a counterclaim – but after the PTO had issued office actions rejecting all claims of one patent, and some of another.  Judge Albright denied the motion, noting that the fact that the defendant in this competitor case had not sought a preliminary injunction did not preclude it from asserting that it would face undue prejudice if the court granted the stay.