In a previous order, the district court granted a motion to stay
pending Inter Partes Review ("IPR") but deferred ruling
on the Motion to Stay with respect to EMC Corporation "until
EMC Corporation has filed a Notice with the Court indicating
whether it is bound by the statutory estoppel provisions of 35
U.S.C. § 315(e)."
Thereafter, EMC filed a Notice stating "if the Court stays
the above-captioned litigation pending resolution of the inter
partes reviews filed on the asserted patents then EMC agrees to be
bound by the full statutory estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. §
Based on this stipulation, the district court agreed that a stay
would be appropriate. "The same analysis that the Court
undertook with respect to HPE and Dell in its Order regarding
Defendants' Motion to Stay thus applies to EMC and the Court
incorporates that analysis by reference here. In other words,
simplification of the issues weighs in favor of a stay, undue
prejudice to Plaintiff weighs in favor of a stay, and the status of
the case weighs in favor of a stay. Indeed, the Court understands
EMC to be representing that it will be bound by statutory estoppel
not only with respect to Dell and HPE's IPR petitions against
the Asserted Patents, but also with respect to IPRs filed against
the Asserted Patents by Oracle. Simplification of the issues thus
weighs even more heavily in favor of a stay with respect to
Accordingly, the district court agreed to stay the case with
respect to EMC.
Realtime Data, LLC v. Dell Inc., Case No. 6:16-CV-00089
(E.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2017)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., No. 15-2078 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the patentee Wasica Finance discovered, among other things, the importance of using consistent terminology in the patent specification and claims.
While under attack for several years now, the patent infringement defense of laches was dealt a serious, and likely final, blow by the recent Supreme Court case of SCA Hygiene Products AB et al. v. First Quality Baby Products LLC et al.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
On April 6, 2017, the Federal Circuit reversed-in-part and affirmed-in-part the district court's judgment of infringement and summary judgment for non-infringement of The Medicines Company's ("MedCo") patents-in-suit.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).