Earlier this month, Judge Robinson issued an opinion in Belden Techs., Inc. v. Superior Essex Commc’ns LP, C.A. No. 08-63-SLR (D. Del. Sept. 2, 2010) (mem.), denying defendant Superior Essex’s motion for a stay pending re-examination of the patents in suit.
The Court weigned the factors in favor and against a stay, applying Enhanced Security Research, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 2010 WL 2573925, at *3 (D. Del. June 25,2010). Some of the factors included:
- The reexam addresses the same issues, so it could simplify the trial. Id. at 4.
- The re-examinations weren’t requested until “approximately 17-20 months” after the start of the litigation, which also cut against a stay. Id. at 4.
- “The untimeliness of Superior Essex’s oral motion clearly cuts against a stay.” Id. at 4.
- “[O]nly those reexamination proceedings that have been substantially completed will weigh in favor of a stay,” while the reexamination in this case is still pending and subject to appeal. Id. at 6.
- The Patent Office has not yet issued a Right of Appeal Notice, and “Belden may statistically wait as long as three years after receiving its [Right of Appeal Notices]; this factor cuts against the grant of a stay.” Id. at 6.
- The fact that Belden did not seek a preliminary injunction cut in favor of a stay, because it indicates that the companies are not direct competitors. Id. at 7.
The Court found that the balance did not favor either party, so it denied the stay.
Belden Techs., Inc. v. Superior Essex Commc’ns LP, C.A. No. 08-63-SLR (D. Del. Sept. 2, 2010) (mem.)
Delaware IP Law Blog 