Message: READ THIS
More importantly, despite having a year to do so, Micron has only just filed their petition for inter partes review.Courts have found the fact that the PTAB has not yet decided whether to grant IPR weighs against granting a motion for a stay.
Accordingly, the delay caused by a stay would “unduly prejudice” e.Digital and would “present a clear tactical disadvantage.” Automatic Mfg., supra, 2013
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67790, at *8. e.Digital should be able “to prosecute its claims, to take discovery, and to set its litigation positions, at least until such a time as the USPTO takes an interest in reviewing the challenged claims.”
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67790, at *8. e.Digital should be able “to prosecute its claims, to take discovery, and to set its litigation positions, at least until such a time as the USPTO takes an interest in reviewing the challenged claims.”
Micron’s argument regarding any alleged hardship from having to continue to litigate this matter rings hollow as it waited until the midnight hour to file its petition, despite having a year to do so.
Defendants served their preliminary invalidity contentions in October (see CaseNo. 3:13-cv-2889-H-BGS, Dkt No. 26 at 5:5-6) and could have filed their petition for IPR well before the parties and the Court invested the time and effort in claim construction proceedings. Indeed, the issues are not exceedingly complex as only one claim is at issue.
Defendants served their preliminary invalidity contentions in October (see CaseNo. 3:13-cv-2889-H-BGS, Dkt No. 26 at 5:5-6) and could have filed their petition for IPR well before the parties and the Court invested the time and effort in claim construction proceedings. Indeed, the issues are not exceedingly complex as only one claim is at issue.
Additionally, as the Court will recall, Micron has had notice since at least October 17, 2014 that it could have filed its petition and sought a stay inas much as another e.Digital Defendant, Intel Corporation, publically filed a similar motion to stay on that date in the related case e.Digital Corporation v. Intel Corporation. Ultimately, the Court declined to grant the motion to stay in that matter (Dkt No. 42) and the case later settled.
As of the date of this filing, claim construction proceedings are nearly complete. Going forward, the parties will conduct fact and expert discovery, but the PTAB is expected to decide whether to grant Micron’s petition well in advance of trial. To the extent the PTAB reaches any conclusions that would have an impact on this case, those can be addressed well in advance of trial or any other final resolution of the case. The expected developments in this litigation going forward are therefore unlikely to irreparably complicate the issues, particularly when weighed against loss of time that would occur if the petition were denied.
21 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply