Motion To Stay Pending IPR
The court denied the motion, finding that two of the three factors weighed against granting a stay.
Stays
Motion To Lift Stay Granted
The court determined to lift the stay after some, but not all, of the PTAB/CAFC proceedings.
Stay Pending IPR
The court denied the motion citing the likely delay, incomplete resolution, unclear degree of simplification, and late stage of the proceeding.
Motion To Stay Pending IPR
The motion was denied – IPR was instituted against only three of the 14 patents in suit.
Motion To Continue Trial Denied
The court previously denied a motion to stay, and considered the arguments “barren and recycled.”
Motion to Transfer Venue / Sever / Stay
The defendant sought a transfer and severance of the claims against a third party seller.
A Tale of Two Stay Motions
Same plaintiff – did a transfer to Austin really get the defendant a stay?
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.