Thursday, February 7, 2013

AIA Intended to Increase Grant Rate for Motions to Stay Pending Post-Grant CBM Review

The court granted defendants' motion to stay six of plaintiff's infringement actions pending post-grant review of business methods (CBM) under Section 18 of the America Invents Act because the potential simplification of issues lightly favored a stay, the stage of the litigation strongly favored a stay, and the lack of undue prejudice and a reduction of the burden of litigation favored a stay. "Section 18 of the AlA adds a fourth factor to the traditional stay analysis, instructing the court to consider 'whether a stay, or the denial thereof, will reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court.' . . . It appears the intent of this provision was to ensure that district courts would grant stays pending CBM review proceedings at a higher rate than they have allowed stays pending ex parte reexaminations. . . . [T]hese actions are 'still at the earliest possible stage. No conferences with the [c]ourt have occurred; no schedules have been set.'. . . . [N]either the timing of the CBM review petition nor the timing of the stay request suggest any inappropriate dilatory motive on the defendants' part. The petition was filed . . . less than one month after the review program went into effect, and the motion to stay was filed [three weeks later]. . . . There is no evidence . . . that [plaintiff] directly competes with any of the defendants' accused products, and its own responsive brief indicates that, at this point, patent infringement litigation represents its primary business. As such, this consideration does not suggest that a stay would cause [plaintiff] undue prejudice."

Markets-Alert Pty Ltd. v. Bloomberg Finance LP, et. al., 1-12-cv-00780 (DED February 5, 2013, Order) (Sleet, J.).

No comments: