Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03526/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03526-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ACCO BRANDS, INC. d/b/a KENSINGTON

TECHNOLOGY GROUP,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PC GUARDIAN ANTI-THEFT PRODUCTS,

INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-03526 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

Now before the Court is defendant’s motion to stay proceedings in this matter pending

reexamination of the patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 6,553,794 (“the ’794 patent”), by the Patent and

Trademark Office (“PTO”). Having considered the moving papers of the parties, and for good cause

appearing, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion. This matter is STAYED until further order of the

Court.

District courts have an inherent power to stay litigation pending the outcome of a PTO

reexamination proceeding. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “A stay is

particularly justified where the outcome of the reexamination would be likely to assist the court in

determining patent validity and, if the claims were canceled in the reexamination, would eliminate the

need to try the infringement issue.” In re Cygnus Telecomm. Tech. LLC, Patent Litig., 385 F. Supp. 2d

1022, 1023 (N.D. Cal. 2005); see also Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340, 1342 (Fed. Cir.

1983) (“One purpose of the reexamination procedure is to eliminate trial of that issue (when the claim

is canceled) or to facilitate trial of that issue by providing the district court with the expert view of the

PTO (when a claim survives the reexamination proceeding).”).

Case 3:04-cv-03526-SI Document 66 Filed 01/19/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

The Young patent is U.S. Patent No. 2,530,560.

2

The unique circumstances of this case lead the Court to conclude that the PTO’s reexamination

of the ’794 patent would be extremely helpful. As discussed in prior orders of this Court, the Young

patent1

 was found to limit one of plaintiff’s patents that is related to the ’794 patent, U.S. Patent No.

5,502,989 (“the ’989 patent”), but was not disclosed to the PTO during prosecution of the ’794 patent.

This Court therefore lacks the PTO’s input on the question whether the Young patent should have the

same limiting effect on the ’794 patent as it did on the ’989 patent, which is one of the central issues in

this case.

Resolution of this thorny issue will be of great assistance to the Court. Further, the Court

believes that the PTO’s expertise makes it the proper body to consider this issue in the first instance.

Regardless of the outcome of the reexamination procedure, the PTO’s opinion will undoubtedly help

the Court focus on the pertinent issues. Finally, given the complex relationship of the Young patent to

the ’794 patent, the Court finds that the benefit of reexamination substantially outweighs any prejudice

to plaintiff that might result from a stay during reexamination.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to stay proceedings. This matter is

STAYED until further order of the Court. The parties shall contact the Court within 30 days of the

PTO’s decision whether to conduct a reexamination.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2006

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03526-SI Document 66 Filed 01/19/06 Page 2 of 2