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.