On December 15, 2009, Chief Judge William K. Sessions III of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont denied a stay in the patent litigation between Synventive Molding Solutions, Inc. (“Synventive”) v. Husky Injection Molding Systems, Inc. (“Husky”), Case No. 2:08-cv-136. Husky had filed a motion to stay the patent litigation based on requests for reexamination of the three patents-in-suit. However, as of the time of Judge Sessions’ decision denying Husky’s motion to stay the litigation pending the outcome of the reexamination proceedings, the requests for reexamination has not yet received filing dates. In deciding whether to grant Husky’s motion to stay the patent litigation, Judge Sessions considered whether (1) a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party; (2) a stay would simplify the issues in question and trial of the case; and (3) discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set. The judge held that actual prejudice to Synventive does not appear to be significant given the availability of money damages for past and ongoing infringement. In the ruling, the judge stated that “[r]eexamination will still leave this Court with triable issues however, even if the reexamination is granted and some claims are amended or canceled upon reexamination. Were the case to be stayed pending reexamination, in all likelihood the parties would require additional discovery on the issues remaining to be tried….Granting a stay would therefore substantially increase the total time necessary to resolve the litigation. The reexamination proceeding may or may not simplify the issues remaining for trial….The parties have engaged in unusually acrimonious discovery practice, which is now drawing to a close. A trial date has been set. The Court can perceive no advantage to delaying the resolution of this litigation.” Weighing heavily in favor of denying the stay were the closeness of the trial, the potential two year delay in resolving the patentability issues in reexamination, and that the reexamination proceedings would not resolve all the issues in the litigation.