CBM Review of One Patent Does Not Justify Stay as to Other Patents-in-Suit

The court granted defendant's motion to stay pending CBM review as to only 1 of 3 patents-in-suit because the lack of potential simplification of issues and stage of the case weighed against a stay for the 2 other patents. "[Defendant] chose to seek limited CBM review before the PTAB on a subset of the patent claims at issue. . . . [T]he court is not convinced that the PTAB's review of a subset of claims will simplify, to any meaningful extent, the issues in question or help streamline the trial. Although discovery is not complete, the trial date that is scheduled is within months of when the PTAB is expected to issue its decision. Given the fact that [defendant] has affirmatively asserted its patents against [plaintiff], it is apparent that [defendant] is playing the stay card as both a sword and a shield. . . . [Defendant's] tactics have actually increased the burdens of litigation, rather than reduced them. . . . Despite the presence of Congress' thumb on the scales of justice, the court concludes that a complete stay, under the circumstances at bar, will not simplify the issues or reduce the burdens of litigation."

Versata Software Inc., et al v. Callidus Software Inc., 1-12-cv-00931 (DED May 8, 2014, Order) (Robinson, J.)