Defendant's oral motion to stay made 11 days before trial is untimely
Belden Technologies Inc., et al. v. Superior Essex Communications LP, et al., Civ. No.08-63-SLR, September 2, 2010.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s oral motion to stay pending reexamination is denied.
The patents-in-suit are generally directed to telecommunications cables. After the suit was commenced, defendant filed a request with the PTO for inter partes reexamination of the '095, '537, '999, and '641 patents, and ex parte reexamination of the '491 and '503 patents. The PTO, determining that a substantial new question of patentability existed for each patent, granted the requests and initiated reexamination proceedings. The CRU issued an ACP in rejecting all of the asserted claims with the exception of the’503 patent for which it noticed its intent to issue a reexamination certification confirming the patentability of the claims of the '503 patent. On August 24, the court ruled upon the parties' cross motions for summary judgment. Only validity remains to be decided in the jury trial. At the pretrial conference 11 days before trial, defendant orally moved to stay litigation with respect to the patents at issue and proceed to trial only with respect to the validity of the '503 patent. Defendant’s request for a stay is untimely. It has known about the ACPs rejection of the other patents for several months but did not request a stay until after issuance of the memorandum opinion. The late request is prejudicial and is therefore denied.
