April 17, 2013
Authored and Edited by Jeffrey C. Totten; Jonathan R.K. Stroud
Earlier today, Judge Pearson of the Northern District of Ohio stayed four co-pending district court cases involving patents subject to a number of ongoing Covered Business Methods (CBM) Post-Grant Reviews. See Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. v. Safeco Insurance Co., No. 1:10-cv-01370, Order resolving ECF No. 98, at 22 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 17, 2013). To date, no district court has ultimately denied a motion to stay pending CBM review.
Section 18(b)(1) of the AIA specifies four factors for determining whether to stay a case pending post-grant review of CBM patents:
Judge Pearson concluded that “[t]he analysis of the four-factor test . . . counsels in favor of granting each defendant’s motion to stay” and closed each of the cases pending notification of the completion of the CBM review.
Judge Pearson considered the legislative history of the factors identified in the AIA and concluded that “the test established by the AIA is designed to increase the likelihood that a stay will be granted when transitional CBM review, in comparison with an ordinary USPTO reexamination, has been instituted.” Examining the four factors, the court concluded that factor three (undue prejudice) “moderately points in favor of denying the motions to stay, [but] it is insufficient to defeat the remaining factors which strongly counsel in favor [of] staying the cases.” The court noted that “[b]ased on the preliminary determinations made by the PTAB, it appears that each claim in contention . . . across the five patents-in-suit, is ‘more likely than not’ to be invalidated.” With respect to the fourth factor, the court found that granting a “stay would relieve Liberty Mutual and Progressive of the burden of litigating in multiple fora” and that the “Court would be relieved of having to expend substantial judicial resources in deciding claim construction, noninfringement, and invalidity issues before those claims are invalidated, narrowed, or refined through CBM review.”
*Jonathan R.K. Stroud is a Law Clerk at Finnegan.
Copyright © 2013 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. Additional disclaimer information.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.