Thank you again for trying, for the umpteenth time, to clarify the fact that a "Patent Re-exam Grant" by the bureaucratsDOES NOT STOP proceedings in a Court of Law, in a Patent Infringment case...

This subject has been rehashed on these pages back to the days of B-LUNIST, and his multiple re-incarnations...

The essence of all the great posts by you and others on this topic can be distilled to the following:...

1) Filing for a re-exam of a patent in patent litigation cases is another last minute ploy by defendants to muddy up the orderly proceedings in a case, and add to defense coffers more "Billing hours".

2) The bureaucrats, routinely, (More than 85% of time, or whatever number it is), grant such requests because [A] they have to prove there was no mistake, and [B] it gives them some additional easy work time.

3) The Courts loath delaying proceeding in a case and almost universally leave the matter to the discretion of the Judge as to whether or not a case should be put on ice just because USPTO had granted a review. And the ground rules for that process are clearly stated by Judge Leonard P. Stark in the example you give in this last post of yours.

The bottom line is the question that should be discussed in NOT how manreview grants are issued by USPTO. Rather, those who keep bringing this subject up should provide us with data reflecting the impact of such review grants on any cases that are scheduled for trial in Federal Courts.

I challange those who keep this topic alive to gives us the number of times in the past 10 years that a Federal Court of Appeal reversed a trial Court for failing to stop proceeding in a case before it because there had been a review grant by USPTO, and the trial Court had denied defendant's Motion to delay things till after the review was completed...

Keep up the good work...

Gil...