In a recent Order, Judge Richard G. Andrews denied plaintiff’s motions seeking to lift the stays in a number of related cases and for leave to file an amended complaint. Arunachalam v. Citizens Financial Group Inc., C.A. Nos. 12-355, 13-1812, 14-91, 14-373-RGA (D. Del. Jan. 12, 2017). Judge Andrews explained that “[b] y the proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff seeks to assert patent 7,340,506 against each Defendant.” Id. at 1. Judge Andrews noted that a CBM trial was instituted on U.S. Patent No. 7,340,506 on November 15, 2016. Id.
Denying plaintiff’s motion to lift the stay and motion for leave to file an amended complaint, Judge Andrews observed:
Maintaining the stay while the PTAB decides the validity challenges raised in the CBM trial of the ‘506 claims represents the proper balancing of the four statutory factors that the court must consider. Since Plaintiff’s other asserted patents have been invalidated, the ‘506 patent is the only patent really at issue in these cases. Resolution of its validity before the PTAB (and Federal Circuit, if there is an appeal) will simplify the issues in the case, and reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court. There have been no proceedings in this case on the ‘506 patent. Thus, three of the four factors clearly favor maintaining the stay. The fourth factor is not so clear based on the present record, but even assuming it favors Plaintiff, the balancing of the factors overall is clearly in favor of maintaining the stay.