Patents Post Grant Blog

United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division Judge Richard Seeborg issued an Order on April 26, 2010 denying a motion to stay Ultra Products, Inc. v. Antec, Inc. (Civil Action No. C 09-04255 RS) pending the outcome of a possible inter partes reexamination of the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 7,133,293 (the “‘293 patent”). The ‘293 patent is directed to a modular computer power supply that is designed to reduce problems with personal computer cords. A decision on a refiled request for inter partes reexamination dated March 29, 2010 based on Neo-Power 480 materials has not yet been made by the USPTO.

In his decision to deny the stay of the patent infringement litigation, Judge Seeborg weighed three factors. The first two factors involve whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical advantage to the nonmoving party and will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case. The third factor is whether discovery is complete and a trial date has been set. He concluded that taken together these factors weigh against a stay of the patent litigation.

The judge exercised his discretion to deny the motion for stay on the basis that the stay would threaten Read the rest of this entry »

EDVA District Court Judge Payne denied the accused infringers’ motion to stay a patent infringement suit pending the outcome  of reexamination of the patents-in-suit in ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:09-cv-620 (E.D.Va. March 31, 2010).   ePlus filed a patent infringement suit in May, 2009, against Lawson Software, Inc., and others alleging infringement of its patents covering electronic sourcing systems, which allow potential buyers to identify items for purchase in a plurality of electronic catalogs and create a requisition order for purchase of the selected items.

SAP America, Inc. and SAP AG had filed for an ex parte reexamination of one of the patents-in-suit.  The  USPTO ordered reexamination of the patent.  ePlus’ appeal to the BPAI in the ex parte reexamination proceeding has not yet been decided.  Later Lawson  filed an inter partes reexamination request against other patents-in-suit.

Judge Payne considered the standard set forth Read the rest of this entry »