Stay pending reexam granted, to be revisited in seven months
Vehicle IP, LLC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 10-503-SLR, November 22, 2010 (Memorandum Order).
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motions to stay pending reexamination are granted.
Prior to this suit, a non-party filed an ex parte request for reexamination of two of the three patents-in-suit on February 16, 2010 on the grounds of obviousness. The PTO thereafter issued office actions that rejected each of the patents’ claims as obvious. Defendants then moved to stay this case pending reexam. The court refers to Belden (D.Del. 9/2/10) for recently-iterated factors which bear upon whether there is a fair possibility that the stay would work damage on another party. Here, the case is in its infancy with no discovery having been conducted and no final scheduling order. One motion was filed within a month after this suit was filed. Issues for trial d not completely overlap those to be resolved on reexamination, yet this is not a situation where the PTO declined to review one or more of the asserted claims, nor is there an inequitable conduct allegation, both of which would disfavor a stay. After considering the status of the litigation, the timing of the request to stay, the status of the reexam proceedings, and the relationship of the parties (they do not compete in this case), the court finds that the facts weigh in favor of a stay in this case, a decision which the court may revisit if it is not satisfied the reexam is proceeding as promptly as would be otherwise achieved through litigation. Parties will file a status report on the reexam proceedings June 15, 2011.
