In denying plaintiff's motion to lift a stay, the court rejected the argument "that 'justice delayed is justice denied' . . . [T]here is no doubt that justice has been delayed. But for whom has justice been denied? There have been multiple appeals in this case, and [plaintiff], who raises the issue of delay, has benefitted by each. . . . Since the PTO must move with special dispatch in the reexamination of the [patent-in-suit], waiting for an indication from the PTO of its next move will not unduly prejudice [plaintiff], especially since reexamination delays, though undesirable, are a reality of the patent structure and therefore are not inherently prejudicial."
Middleton Inc. v. MN Mining and Mfg., 4-03-cv-40493 (IASD June 25, 2010, Order) (Gritzner, J.)