LegalMetric has released a report of 212 decisions on litigation stays pending Inter Partes review.  The report indicates that stays are granted 65.6% of the time and the time to decision averages 2.1 months.  For more details, get the report from LegalMetric.

New Filings

Cisco Systems, Inc. filed IPR2014-01179 challenging U.S. Paten No. 6,901,048 assigned to Constellation Technologies LLC.

Cisco Systems, Inc. filed IPR2014-01180 challenging U.S. Paten No. 7,154,879 assigned to Constellation Technologies LLC.

Ericcson Inc. filed UPR2014-01185 challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,269,127 assigned to Intellectual Ventures II LLC.

Institution Decisions

In Catapult Innovations Pty Ltd. v. adidas AG, DER2014-00002, Paper 19 (July 18, 2014), the Board denied institution of a derivation proceeding.

In Catapult Innovations Pty Ltd. v. adidas AG, DER2014-00006, Paper 6 (July 18, 2014), the Board denied institution of a derivation proceeding.

In First Quality Retail Services, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., IPR2014-00336, Paper 8, (July 18, 2014), the Board instuted an inter partes review of claims 1–16 of U.S. Patent No. 8,622,984.

Final Writen Decision

In  ScentAir Technologies, Inc. v. Prolitec, Inc., IPR2013-00180, Paper 47 (July 18, 2014), the Board found claims 1, 3-5, 9-13, 15, 22-24, 26, 28, and 33 of U.S. Patent No. 7,930,068 were unpatentable.

New Petitions Filed

Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, inc. filed IPR2014-01178 challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,900,057, assigned to Enova Technology Corporation.

Final Written Decision

In Primera Technology, Inc. v, Accupalte, IPR2013-00196, Paper 50 (July 17, 2014), the Board held that claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,013,884 were unpatentable.

In Hyundai Mobis Co., Ltd. v. Autoliv ASP, Inc., IPR2014-01005, Paper 5, IPR2014-01006 (June 17, 2014), Paper 5, the Board accorded the peition a filing date, but gave petitioner five business days to correct the claim charts.

New Filings

Novelty, Inc. filed IPR2014-01171 challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,021,594 assogned to Thomas E. Hundley.

CoolIT Systems, Inc. filed IPR2014-01172 challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,749,968.

Norman International, Inc. filed IPR2014-01173 challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,648,050.

Norman International, Inc. filed IPR2014-01174 challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,283,192.

Norman International, Inc. filed IPR2014-01175 challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,968,884.

Norman International, Inc. filed IPR2014-01176 challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,230,896.

Institution Decisions

in American United Life Insurance Company v. Annuitek, LLC,  CBM2014-00120, Paper 10 (July 16, 2014), the Board terminated the covered business method review before institution on the joint motion of the parties.

In Sequenom Inc. v. The Board of Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University, IPR2014-00337, Paper 11 (July 16, 2014), the Board denied inter partes review of claims 1–17, of U.S. Patent No. 8,195,415.

Final Written Decisions

In Norwex USA, Inc. v. UMF Corp., IPR2014-00151, Paper 24 (July 16, 2014), the Board terminated the inter partes review on the joint motion of the parties.

In The Scotts Company LLC v. ENCAP, LLC, IPR2014-01110 (July 15, 2014), the Board granted the Petition a filing date, but gave petitioner five days to fix its claim charts.

Institution Decisons

In Symantec Corporation v. RPOST Communications Limited, IPR2014-00353, Paper 15 (July 15, 2014), the Board denied inter partes review of 1-30 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,628.

In Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. v. DataTreasury Corporation,  CBM2014-00020, Paper 23 CBM2014-00021, Paper 24 (July 11, 2014), the Board granted petitioner’s motion to expedite the the covered business method review because it might help reduce duplicative litigation.

In Virtualagility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., [2014-1232] (July 20. 2014), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a stay of an infringement suit pursuant to AIA § 18(b)(1) pending disposition of a covered business method review of the patent in suit.

The Federal Circuit had jurisdiction of the stay pursuan to AIA § 18(b)(2).  The statute sets forth four points for the district court to consider in deciding whether to stay the litigation:

(A) whether a stay, or the denial thereof, will simplify the issues in question and streamline the trial;

(B) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set;

(C) whether a stay, or the denial thereof, would unduly prejudice the nonmoving party or present a clear tactical advantage for the moving party; and

(D) whether a stay, or the denial thereof, will reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court.

The statute further provides that the Federal Circuit “shall review the district court’s decision to ensure consistent application of established precedent, and such review may be de novo.” The Federal Circuit declined to decided what standard of review it would apply, finding that under any standard the district court’s denial of stay must be reversed.

The district court questioned whether the petitioner was likely to succeed, but the Federal Circuit said that a challenge to the PTAB’s “more likely than not” determination at this stage amounted to an improper collateral attack on the PTAB’s decision to institute CBM review that would create serious practical problems.