In an April 1, 2014 ruling, Judge Katherine B. Forrest stayed a patent infringement action pending the USPTO’s decision on the defendant’s petition for a Covered Business Method review, and the outcome of the review. The Court was “persuaded by the undisputed evidence presented by [the defendant] of the high likelihood that both the Patent Trial and Appeal Board will grant the Covered Business Method review, and that such CBM review will result in the cancellation or amendment of at least one claim of” the patent-in-suit. Judge Forrest noted that it “is not this Court’s typical practice or inclination to grant stays,” but found that the four factors for granting a stay set out in the America Invents Act weigh in favor of a stay in light of the likelihood that the CBM review will result in amendment of the patent and the early stage of the proceeding.
for the Southern District of New York
Court Grants Stay of Patent Infringement Action Pending Covered Business Method Review in the USPTO
In an April 1, 2014 ruling, Judge Katherine B. Forrest stayed a patent infringement action pending the USPTO’s decision on the defendant’s petition for a Covered Business Method review, and the outcome of the review. The Court was “persuaded by the undisputed evidence presented by [the defendant] of the high likelihood that both the Patent Trial and Appeal Board will grant the Covered Business Method review, and that such CBM review will result in the cancellation or amendment of at least one claim of” the patent-in-suit. Judge Forrest noted that it “is not this Court’s typical practice or inclination to grant stays,” but found that the four factors for granting a stay set out in the America Invents Act weigh in favor of a stay in light of the likelihood that the CBM review will result in amendment of the patent and the early stage of the proceeding.
Labels
05 Civ. 390
(
1
)
09 Civ. 10112
(
1
)
09 Civ. 528
(
1
)
10 Civ. 3734
(
1
)
10 Civ. 7246
(
1
)
11 Civ. 1001
(
1
)
11 Civ. 1594
(
1
)
11 Civ. 4985
(
1
)
11 Civ. 6808
(
1
)
12 Civ 5071
(
1
)
12 Civ. 3699
(
1
)
12 Civ. 3810
(
1
)
12 Civ. 4919
(
1
)
12 Civ. 5070
(
1
)
12 Civ. 5230
(
1
)
12 Civ. 6283
(
2
)
12 Civ. 779
(
1
)
12 Civ. 7902
(
1
)
12 Civ. 9260
(
1
)
12 Civ. 95
(
1
)
13 Civ. 1787
(
1
)
13 Civ. 684
(
1
)
ACPA
(
1
)
Advice of Counsel
(
1
)
Affirmative Defense
(
3
)
ANDA
(
2
)
Anonymity
(
2
)
Attorneys' Fees
(
18
)
Bifurcation
(
1
)
Breach of Contract
(
2
)
Case or Controversy
(
2
)
Contempt
(
2
)
Copyright
(
9
)
Copyright Infringement
(
76
)
Counterfeiting
(
4
)
Damages
(
7
)
Declaratory Judgment
(
7
)
Default Judgment
(
2
)
Federal Circuit
(
2
)
First Sale Doctrine
(
1
)
Fraud
(
1
)
Fraudulent Concealment
(
1
)
Infringement Contentions
(
3
)
Interlocutory Appeal
(
4
)
Judge Abrams
(
5
)
Judge Buchwald
(
3
)
Judge Castel
(
8
)
Judge Cedarbaum
(
1
)
Judge Daniels
(
4
)
Judge Dolinger
(
2
)
Judge Forrest
(
16
)
Judge Gardephe
(
5
)
Judge Hellerstein
(
4
)
Judge Oetken
(
5
)
Judge Preska
(
4
)
Judge Ramos
(
1
)
Judge Schofield
(
5
)
Judge Sullivan
(
12
)
Moot
(
4
)
Motion to Quash
(
2
)
Patent
(
1
)
Patent Infringement
(
56
)
Preliminary Injunction
(
4
)
Reasonable Royalty
(
2
)
Renewal
(
1
)
Safe Harbor
(
1
)
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
(
5
)
Summary Judgment
(
8
)
Trademark
(
2
)
Trademark Infringement
(
42
)
Willfulness
(
6
)
The general information and thoughts posted to this blog are provided only as an informational service to the web community and do not constitute solicitation or provision of legal advice. Nothing on this blog is intended to create an attorney-client relationship and nothing posted constitutes legal advice. You should understand that the posts by the author, who is an attorney at U.S. law firm Allegaert, Berger & Vogel, may or may not reflect the views of that firm and that the author of this blog is only authorized to practice law in the jurisdictions in which he is properly licensed to do so. For additional information, click here.