Smartflash LLC et al v. Apple Inc. et al, 6-13-cv-00447 (TXED July 8, 2014, Order) (Mitchell, M.J.)
Thursday, July 10, 2014
AIA Legislative History Does Not Dictate That Stay Pending CBM “Should Almost Always be Granted”
The court denied without prejudice defendant's motion to stay pending CBM review and rejected defendant's argument that stay should be nearly automatic. "[Defendant] argues that strong language in the legislative history indicates Congress’s intent to 'place a very heavy thumb on the scale in favor of a stay being granted' to the point that 'it is nearly impossible to imagine a scenario in which a district court would not issue a stay.' However, Congress did not provide an automatic stay provision. . . . Whether to ultimately grant or deny such a stay flows from the court’s inherent authority to manage its own docket. The Court declines to rely on statements in the legislative history cited by Defendants that imply a stay should almost always be granted. The statutory text is unambiguous about what factors to apply and does not reflect the idea that a stay should almost always be granted."