Stay Pending CBM Review Granted Prior to Institution Despite Different Prior Art

The court granted defendant's motion to stay pending PTAB covered business method review even though the CBM petition involved different prior art and the PTAB had not yet instituted review. "Plaintiff argues . . . that the prior art at issue in this case differs from the prior art that Defendant has used in the review petitions. The PTAB review, however, may result in a pronouncement on the validity of a patent at issue, whether or not prior art at issue in this case remains at issue in this case. . . . I take note, too, of the observation that '[t]oo many district courts have been content to allow litigation to grind on while a reexamination is being conducted, forcing the parties to fight in two fora at the same time.'. . . Allowing one to conclude, even if the two proceedings involve different prior art, is likely to streamline the other. . . . [I]t has been held, within this Circuit, that the relevant stay provisions of the AIA apply when the petition for review is filed, and not when the PTAB institutes such review."

Sightsound Technologies LLC v. Apple, Inc., 2-11-cv-01292 (PAWD June 6, 2013, Order) (Ambrose, J.).