![]() 2014) (internal citations omitted) Nichia Corp. (2) whether the court has issued its claim construction order…and (3) whether the court has set a trial date.” PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. 2 Under this first factor, courts typically consider “(1) whether parties have engaged in costly expert discovery and dispositive motion practice…. ![]() Therefore, the Court must generally rely on persuasive authority. 1 The parties generally did not cite to any controlling case law, apparently because a stay order under these circumstances is generally not reviewable. 20, 2015).1 To determine whether to stay a case pending inter partes review, district courts typically consider “(1) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case and (3) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving party. Universal Remote Control, Inc., 943 F.Supp.2d 1028, 1031 (C.D.Cal.2013), cited in Wonderland Nursery Goods Co. DISCUSSION A decision whether to grant a stay pending inter partes review is made under the totality of the circumstances. Defendants filed this motion to stay this case on July 10, 2018. The PTAB will decide whether to institute inter partes review in January 2019. Defendants’ IPR petitions challenge the patentability of every asserted patent claim in this case, on multiple grounds, including prior public art. Patent and Trademark Office for inter partes review (“IPR”) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). On June 29 and July 3 2018, Defendants filed four petitions with the U.S. The purpose of inter partes review is to create a more efficient, cost-effective alternative to litigation. Patent Trademark Office, challenging the validity of patent claims on certain limited grounds. §§ 311–319 (2013), allows parties to submit petitions for inter partes review to the U.S. The Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub.L. Plaintiffs filed this patent infringement case on October 10, 2017, alleging that Defendants infringed upon four published patents. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs and Defendants design and sell endodontic drill files. This matter is therefore STAYED pending inter partes review. Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and applicable law, the Court finds that Defendants’ Motion is well-taken and, therefore, is GRANTED. ![]() MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Inter Partes Review, filed J(Doc. 1:17-cv-01041 WJ/SCY EDGE ENDO, LLC, and US ENDODONTICS, LLC Defendants. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO _ DENTSPLY SIRONA, INC, and TULSA DENTAL PRODUCTS LLC, doing business as Dentsply Sirona Endodontics, Plaintiffs, v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |