Motion To Stay Pending IPR
The court denied the motion, finding that two of the three factors weighed against granting a stay.
The court denied the motion, finding that two of the three factors weighed against granting a stay.
The court determined to lift the stay after some, but not all, of the PTAB/CAFC proceedings.
The court denied the motion citing the likely delay, incomplete resolution, unclear degree of simplification, and late stage of the proceeding.
The motion was denied – IPR was instituted against only three of the 14 patents in suit.
The court previously denied a motion to stay, and considered the arguments “barren and recycled.”
The defendant sought a transfer and severance of the claims against a third party seller.
Same plaintiff – did a transfer to Austin really get the defendant a stay?
The court noted that reexam had been granted for three of the patents at issue.
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.
The PTAB’s final written decision held that all 47 challenged claims had not been proven unpatentable. The defendant still opposed lifting the stay.