A Tale of Two Stay Motions
Same plaintiff – did a transfer to Austin really get the defendant a stay?
Stays
Another Stay Pending Re-Examination In Austin
The court noted that reexam had been granted for three of the patents at issue.
Motion To Stay Pending IPR/Reexam
This is another order from Judge Yeakel in Austin granting a motion to stay pending re-examination following institution of ten proceedings at the USPTO.
Stay Lifted?
The PTAB’s final written decision held that all 47 challenged claims had not been proven unpatentable. The defendant still opposed lifting the stay.
Motion To Stay Pending IPR
Judge Gilliland’s first ruling on a motion to stay based on the pendency of IPRs was after the PTAB instituted proceedings.
Motion to Stay Pending IPR
The is order might shed some light on when stays might and might not be granted in the Austin Division.
Motion To Stay Pending IPR Proceedings
They can deny motions to stay in the Northern District of Texas too – but this is an odd fact situation.
Redo on Enhanced Damages Award
Following remand, Judge Gilstrap recalculated the enhanced damages award.
First-to-File Rule v. Where A Case “Might Have Been Brought”/ Stay
Two rules going head to head in this case before getting sideswiped by common sense.
Motion To Stay Pending IPR
IPRs were instituted as to three of the seven asserted patents. Noting that the IPR petitions were timely filed, that the plaintiff was not a competitor, and that a stay would simplify the issues, Judge Yeakel granted the stay.