Intellectual Property Law

Sue L. Robinson: Judge Robinson again denies stay pending reexamination

By Karen E. Keller, Andrew A. Lundgren et al.

A few days after discussing the factors that the court will weigh to determine if a stay pending reexamination is warranted on the eve of trial (see Belden opinion), Judge Robinson issued a second opinion denying a stay. In this case, the discovery period concluded two years prior and Judge Robinson?s claim construction and summary judgment decisions had ?been vetted through the Federal Circuit.? Id. at 4. Although the motion to stay was made years into the litigation, no trial date was set, unlike in Belden where the oral motion to stay was made at the pretrial conference. However, the movant filed its stay motion only after the reexaminations were in the appeal process and after the Federal Circuit had vacated Judge Robinson?s order that defendant does not infringe. Id. at 4-5.

Oracle Corp. and Oracle USA, Inc. v. Parallel Networks, LLP, C.A. No. 06-414-SLR (D. Del. Sept. 8, 2010)

Full post as published by Delaware IP Law Blog on September 16, 2010 (boomark / email).