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.
The plaintiff asked the court to lift the stay that’s been, um, sitting on their shoulders, based on the conclusion of ex parte re-examination proceedings.
The issue was whether cases would be staying awaiting the Federal Circuit’s rulings on three improper venue claims.
If brevity is the soul of wit, this order is hilarious.
The parties agreed that the lead case should be deconsolidated – they disagreed whether the lead case should be stayed after it went solo.
Ex parte reviews are sort of like vinyl LPs. Yes, you’ve got the CD, but maybe it’ll sound better on vinyl.
This is the second denial of a motion to stay in this case in the last two weeks. One might say the court’s position was … set in concrete?
The issue here is whether the customer defendant’s affirmative defenses would be dismissed with or without prejudice following settlement of the action against the manufacturer.
Last week I wrote about stays in Waco – this week we have even more rulings on motions to stay in Marshall to analyze.
They don’t get much coverage, but cases are stayed frequently for a variety of reasons – and sometimes un-stayed, as this sampling of recent orders from Waco shows.
