Stays Pending Litigation

objectWhere an order has been granted to stay a patent litigation pending the outcome of a reexamination of the patent-in-suit, there is little likelihood that patent owner will be able to successfully appeal the decision ordering the stay of litigation.  Such orders are generally not appealable, because they are not considered final decisions.  See Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1983).  There is an exception where the stay “effectively could put one of the appellants out of court” or if some “patent issue would escape review by a federal court if the case is stayed.”  See Slip Track Sys., Inc. v. Metal-Lite, Inc., 159 F.3d 1337, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

// <![CDATA[
// <![CDATA[

top.docjs = this;

// This function goes to the next document in the View
function noNextViewDoc() {
alert(‘No Next Document’);
return;
}

// This function goes to the previous document in the View
function noPrevViewDoc() {
alert(‘No Previous Document’);
return;
}

// This function goes to the next document in the View
function no_next_doc_in_search_results() {
alert(‘This is the last document in your search results for this category.’);
return;
}

// This function goes to the previous document in the View
function no_prev_doc_in_search_results() {
alert(‘This is the first document in your search results for this category.’);
return;
}

// This function goes to the next document in the View
function no_next_doc_in_search_category() {
alert(‘This is the last document in your current search category.’);
return;
}

// This function goes to the previous document in the View
function no_prev_doc_in_search_category() {
alert(‘This is the first document in your current search category.’);
return;
}

//This function takes the user to the first hit of this document
function goto_first_hit() {
var anchor_length = document.anchors.length;
var found = false;

for (i=0; i < anchor_length; i++) {
if (document.anchors[i].name == “ctx1”) {
found = true;
}
}

if (found) {
document.location.hash = “ctx1”;
} else {
alert(“This document is the first hit. Use Next Doc to progress through your search results list..”);
}

return;
}

function next_hit(cur_hit) {
hit = cur_hit + 1;

if (top.docjs.total_hits && (cur_hit < top.docjs.total_hits)) {
document.location.hash = “ctx” + hit;
} else {
if (top.docjs.next_doc_in_search_results) {
top.document.location.href = top.docjs.next_doc_in_search_results;
}
}
}

function prev_hit(cur_hit) {
hit = cur_hit – 1;
document.location.hash = “ctx” + hit;
}

function new_next_hit() {
if (top.hldoc && top.hldoc.cur_hit) {
this_hit = top.hldoc.cur_hit;
} else {
this_hit = 0;
top.hldoc.cur_hit = 0;
}

next_hit = this_hit + 1;

if (top.docjs.total_hits) {
if (this_hit < top.docjs.total_hits) {
document.location.hash = “ctx” + next_hit;
if (this_hit != 0)
{
document.getElementById(“idctx” + this_hit).className = “display_hl_text”;
}
document.getElementById(“idctx” + next_hit).className = “display_hl_text_active”;
top.hldoc.cur_hit++;
} else {
if (top.docjs.next_doc_in_search_results) {
top.document.location.href = top.docjs.next_doc_in_search_results;
}
}
} else {
alert(“Please let the whole page load before using this feature.”);
top.document.location.reload(true);
}
}

function new_prev_hit() {
if (top.hldoc && top.hldoc.cur_hit) {
this_hit = top.hldoc.cur_hit;
} else {
this_hit = 0;
top.hldoc.cur_hit = 0;
}

prev_hit = this_hit – 1;

if (prev_hit >= 1) {
document.location.hash = “ctx” + prev_hit;
document.getElementById(“idctx” + this_hit).className = “display_hl_text”;
document.getElementById(“idctx” + prev_hit).className = “display_hl_text_active”;
top.hldoc.cur_hit–;
} else {
if (top.docjs.prev_doc_in_search_results) {
top.document.location.href = top.docjs.prev_doc_in_search_results;
}
}
}

function no_search_results() {
alert(‘Your search results are not in your user session.\nYou will need to re-execute your query to use this functionality’);
return;
}

// ]]>// <![CDATA[
// <![CDATA[
var search_template = “/iplw/5000/search_doc_hit_highlight.adp”;

// ]]>// <![CDATA[
// <![CDATA[
var product = “iplw”;

var personalization_allowed = false;

// ]]>// <![CDATA[
// <![CDATA[
function getFavoriteDocName( ) {
top.smallPopUp(‘/iplw/core_adp/get_favorite_doc_name.adp’, 360, 250);
}

function trimwhitespaces(str) {
while (str.charAt(0)==’ ‘)
str = str.substring(1,str.length);

while (str.charAt(str.length-1)==’ ‘)
str = str.substring(0,str.length-1);

return str;
}

function saveDoc() {
if( document.getDocName.name.value == “” ) {
alert(“You must enter a name in order to save a document to your Favorite Document List.”);
return false;
} else {
var aName = trimwhitespaces(document.getDocName.name.value);

if ( aName.length == 0 ) {
alert(“You must enter at least one alphanumeric char for the document name.”);
return false;
} else {
document.getDocName.name.value = aName;
document.getDocName.docid.value = “[bwd::get_cgi_var docid]”;

if (window.opener.data) {
document.getDocName.calling_url.value = window.opener.data.document.location.href;
} else if (window.opener) {
document.getDocName.calling_url.value = window.opener.document.location.href;
} else {
document.getDocName.calling_url = “[bwd::get_cgi_var calling_url]”
}

for (i = 0; i < document.getDocName.elements.length; i++) {
if (document.getDocName.elements[i].name == “hpage”) {
if (document.getDocName.elements[i].checked) {
document.getDocName.dhpage.value = “Y”;
} else {
document.getDocName.dhpage.value = “N”;
}
}
}

document.getDocName.action = “/iplw/core_adp/save_favorite_doc_name.adp”;

return true;
}
}
}

function get_selected_docName_value() {
if( document.docList ) {
if( document.docList.numDoc.value == 1 ) {
return(document.docList.selectedDoc.value);
} else {
for( i=0; i<document.docList.numDoc.value; i++ ) {
if( document.docList.selectedDoc[i].checked ) {
return (document.docList.selectedDoc[i].value);
}
}
}

return(“”);
} else {
return(“”);
}
}

function get_selected_doc_list(action) {
var count=0;
var i=0;

if (document.docList) {
for (i = 0; i < document.docList.elements.length; i++) {
var elementType = document.docList.elements[i].type;

if (document.docList.elements[i].name.substring(0,6) == action &&
elementType.toLowerCase() == “checkbox” &&
document.docList.elements[i].checked) {
count++;
}
}
}
return (count);
}

function delete_favorite_doc() {
var count=get_selected_doc_list(“delete”);

if (count == 0) {
alert(“Please select a document to delete.”);
} else {
document.docList.calling_url.value = this.document.location.href;
document.docList.action = “/iplw/core_adp/delete_favorite_doc.adp”;
document.docList.submit();
}
}

function update_favorite_doc_hpage() {
var count=get_selected_doc_list(“update”);

if (count > 10) {
alert(‘The maximum number of favorite documents for display on the home page is ten.’);
} else {
document.docList.calling_url.value = this.document.location.href;
document.docList.action = “/iplw/core_adp/update_favorite_doc_hpage.adp”;
document.docList.submit();
}
}

function rename_favorite_doc(docid) {
top.smallPopUp(‘/iplw/core_adp/get_new_favorite_doc_name.adp?docid=’ + docid+ ‘&calling_url=’+this.document.location.href, 350, 195);
}

function renameDoc() {
if( document.getDocName.name.value == “” ) {
alert(“You must enter a name in order to save a favorite document.”);
return false;
} else {
var aName = trimwhitespaces(document.getDocName.name.value);

if ( aName.length == 0 ) {
alert(“You must enter at least one alphanumeric char for the new document name.”);
return false;
} else {
document.getDocName.doc_name.value = aName;
document.getDocName.action = ‘/[bwd::get_product]/core_adp/rename_favorite_doc_name.adp’;
document.getDocName.action = ‘/iplw/core_adp/rename_favorite_doc_name.adp’;

return true;
}
}
}

function closeWindow() {
window.close();
}

function forbid(obj) {
alert(“This document is no longer valid. Please pick another document to be displayed on the home page.”);
obj.checked = false;

}
function forbid_exceed(obj) {
alert(‘You have reached the maximum number (10) of favorite documents for display on the home page.’);
obj.checked = false;
}

// ]]>// <![CDATA[
// <![CDATA[
function makeRequest(url, obj) {

// Number of documents selected
var batchprint_count = 0;
if (window.frames[‘bpPlaceHolder’].batchprint_count) {
// alert (window.frames[‘bpPlaceHolder’].batchprint_count);
batchprint_count = window.frames[‘bpPlaceHolder’].batchprint_count;
// Initial page load
} else if (document.batchprint.batchprint_count){
batchprint_count = document.batchprint.batchprint_count.value;
}

if (document.batchprint) {

if (obj.checked) {
// limit is 25 documents
if (batchprint_count >= 25) {
alert (“You have reached the maximum number of documents (25) for batch printing. Click on the print icon to print your selections.”);
window.location.reload(true);
} else {
url = url + ‘&action=add’
frames[‘bpPlaceHolder’].location.href = url;
}
} else {
url = url + ‘&action=delete’;
frames[‘bpPlaceHolder’].location.href = url;
}
}
}

// ]]>// <![CDATA[
// <![CDATA[
function openPrintView() {
URL = “/iplw/display/batch_print_dialog.adp?fedfid=3635215&vname=ippqcases2&wsn=520004000&searchid=10686607&doctypeid=1&type=court&mode=doc&split=0&scm=5000&pg=0”;
top.smallPopUp(URL,650,500,’batchprint’);
}

function openHierPrintView(hprint) {
URL = “/iplw/display/batch_print_dialog.adp?fedfid=3635215&vname=ippqcases2&wsn=520004000&searchid=10686607&doctypeid=1&type=court&mode=doc&split=0&scm=5000&pg=0” + “&hprint=” + hprint;
top.smallPopUp(URL,650,500,’batchprint’);
}

// ]]>

Federal courts have often found jurisdiction to review stays in favor of state court suits when the state court judgment would have a fully preclusive effect on the federal action or moot the federal action entirely.  See , e.g. , Cone , 460 U.S. at 10; Terra Nova Ins. Co. v. 900 Bar, Inc. , 887 F.2d 1213, 1218-21 (3d Cir. 1989).  Stays in favor of administrative proceedings are similarly reviewed on an “effectively out of court” standard. See Gould , 705 F.2d at 1341; Hines v. D’Artois , 531 F.2d 726, 730-32 (5th Cir. 1976).

It is difficult to identify many circumstances in which an “effectively out of court” situation would be presented for substantive issues based on concurrent reexamination. 
Continue Reading Appelate Review of Stays Pending Patent Reexamination?

slingass=”alignleft size-full wp-image-1179″ title=”sling” src=”https://www.patentspostgrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/sling.jpg” alt=”sling” width=”217″ height=”249″ />As explained in my earlier post entitled Effectively Presenting a Request For Reexamination (Part I), I pointed out that requests for reexamination commonly include argumentation that is irrelevant to a proper SNQ analysis.  For example, these arguments relate to inequitable conduct, litigation infringement positions, and 112 issues of original claims.  However, in the case of reexamination concurrent with litigation, there is a clear tactical advantage to including such argumentation as a litigation tactic. 

In other words, the Office may be, unknowingly, encouraging this behavior. The reason being, while much of reexamination is not admissible (see our four part series on this topic) as evidence at trial, when seeking a stay of a concurrent litigation, Office communications will be thoroughly reviewed. 

For example, in a recent reexamination concurrent with litigation that was stayed, the requestor attacked the original patent claims as reciting subject matter not supported by the specification. 
Continue Reading Does MPEP 2258/2658 (H) Encourage Improper Reexamination Requests?

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

In a growing trend, district courts are using their discretion to deny motions to stay patent infringement litigation in light of concurrent proceedings at the USPTO.  In an earlier post, we commented on the Northern District of California’s deviation from that trend.  In Advanced Analogic Technologies, Inc. v. Kinetic Technolgies, Inc., the concurrent proceeding was an inter partes reexam.  In LG Electronics USA Inc. et al (“LG”) v. Whirlpool Corporation (“Whirlpool”) (Case No. 1-08-cv-00234), the defendant’s motion to stay was denied consistent with the trend to deny such motions and the concurrent proceeding was an interference. Judge Gregory M. Sleet of the District Court of Delaware denied Whirlpool’s motion to stay pending the outcome of an interference involving LG’s patents-in-suit.  The patents-in-suit are
Continue Reading Is the Declaration of an Interference Enough to Stay a District Court Litigation?

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia in E-Z-GO v. Club Car, Inc. (Case No. 1:09-cv-119) has stayed the litigation of E-Z-GO’s patent pending the outcome of inter partes reexamination.  E-Z-GO asserts that two of Club Car’s currently marketed electric vehicles infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,332,881, entitled “AC Drive System for Electrically

The competitive relation between the litigants is a recurring theme of E.D. of Texas determinations on whether or not to grant a motion to stay the infringment action in view of a pending reexamination.  In other words, where the litigants are direct competitors, the trend has been to deny motions for staying the litigation.

As noted in Motorola Inc v. Vtech Communications, Inc. et al (5-07-cv-00171) E.D. TX,(Order) (Craven, C.) 

Stays of proceedings are not favored when parties are competitors. Nidec Corp. v. LG Innotek, Co., 2009 WL 3673433, * 4 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2009); O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation, 2008 WL 4809093, *2 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 2008) (“The parties are direct competitors in the market and a denial of timely enforcement of the plaintiff’s patent rights does indeed
Continue Reading Are Patent Trolls More Vulnerable to Reexamination in the Eastern District of Texas?

In recent posts, we have discussed the Northern District of California’s surprising stay of a patent infringement suit in view of an undecided reexamination request.  Likewise, our colleagues at the ITCblog have discussed the opposite extreme, the International Trade Commission (ITC).  The ITC seems to grant stays pending reexamination in only the most extreme of circumstances due to their statutorily mandated time to decision. 

In the Eastern District of Texas, stays although historically disfavored, are beginning to emerge in stipulated form. 
Continue Reading Forum Shopping in Anticipation of Concurrent Reexamination

The face of patent litigation in the U.S. has evolved greatly in the last 5 years with respect to patent reexamination. For patent litigators, throughout the U.S. and especially the Northern District of Illinois, the emergence of this now seemingly reliable strategic option is an important case management consideration. Indeed, if not adequately considered in