In denying plaintiff's motion to reconsider a stay pending reexamination, the court rejected plaintiff's argument that its experts "will be prejudiced by virtue of the stay because they have agreed to a patent prosecution bar until one year after resolution of the case. . . . This is not a new fact that could not have been brought to the Court’s attention earlier. . . . Second . . . [t]hat an expert faces a limited patent prosecution bar for the pendency of this litigation does factor into whether the Court should have issued the stay. Presumably, the restriction to which the experts choose to submit is more than offset by the benefit of generating substantial income by rendering expert services."
Interval Licensing LLC v. eBay, Inc., et. al., 2-10-cv-01385 (WAWD July 12, 2011, Order) (Pechman, J.)