Intellectual Property Law

Judge Leonard P. Stark: Motion to Stay Pending Reexam DENIED

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

In what appears to be Judge Stark's first decision on a motion to stay pending reexamination as an Article III judge, he denied the defendants' request to stay the action pending an inter partes reexamination. Cooper Notification, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., C.A. No. 09-865-LPS, Memo. Order (D. Del. Dec. 13, 2010). Plaintiff, relying on Judge Stark's decision in St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Fujifilm Holding Corp., argued that defendants' failed to "articulate a clear hardship or inequity" that they would suffer without the stay. Id. at 3. The Court noted that this decision does not require a showing of hardship or inequity in proceeding with litigation for the court to grant a stay. Id. at 4.

The Court further found that the issues in the litigation and the reexamination did not overlap completely, plaintiff expressly represented that it would not amend the claims during reexamination and the case has already been set for trial. Id. at 5-6.

It thus appears that Judge Stark will continue with the District's recent trend in denying motions to stay.

Cooper Notification, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., C.A. No. 09-865-LPS, Memo. Order (D. Del. Dec. 13, 2010).

Full post as published by Delaware IP Law Blog on December 23, 2010 (boomark / email).