In National Oil Well Varco, LP v Omron Oilfield & Marine, Inc., A-12-CA-77-SS (W.D. Texas June 10, 2013), Judge Sam Sparks\u00a0of the Western District of Texas denied without prejudice defendant’s motion to stay the litigation pending the resolution of an Inter Partes Review defendant filed challenging the patent in suit.\u00a0 The Court noted that the parties had largely completed their Markman briefing when defendant “opened up a second front” in its legal battle by filing a petition for Inter Partes Review.\u00a0 Judge Sparks noted that it woudl be at least five months before the court would know whether an Inter Partes Review had even been declarated, and possibly two years before it was completed.\u00a0 The Court concluded that it would be a waste of judicial resources to stay the case when the matter is so close to issuance of a Markman order, noting at least one other court that denied a stay in a similar situation.\u00a0 Universal Elecs., Inc., v Universal Remote Control, Inc., SACV 12-00329 AG, 2013 WL 1876459, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 2, 2013).\u00a0 The Court noted taht given other aspects of this case, such as non-Markman discovery having not yet proceeded, a stay\u00a0might be well taken after a Markman orider has issued, and denied the Motion without prejudice.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In National Oil Well Varco, LP v Omron Oilfield & Marine, Inc., A-12-CA-77-SS (W.D. Texas June 10, 2013), Judge Sam Sparks\u00a0of the Western District of Texas denied without prejudice defendant’s motion to stay the litigation pending the resolution of an … Continue reading