Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01780/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01780-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Acella Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1780-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Defendant Acella filed a Motion for Stay Pending Re-examination on September 13,

2010. (Doc. 11.) Acella asked the Court to stay this case until the United States Patent and

Trademark Office (“PTO”) competed a reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,776,355 (the “355

Patent”). At the time Acella filed its first Motion to Stay, Acella had filed a Request for

Reexamination, but the PTO had not granted that request.

The Court denied the Motion to Stay on October 5, 2010. (Doc. 20.) The Court stated

that it generally does not grant requests for stays and noted that Plaintiff had argued that this

case in particular needed to proceed on an expedited basis. The Court did not rely in its

Order on the fact that the PTO had not yet granted a reexamination. 

Acella filed the pending Motion for Reconsideration of Stay Pending Re-examination

(Docs. 66&72) on December 21, 2010. The Court ordinarily will deny “a motion for

reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or

legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable

Case 2:10-cv-01780-JAT Document 130 Filed 02/09/11 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 -

diligence.” L.R.Civ.P. 7.2(g)(1). Acella bases its request for reconsideration on two new

developments: 1) the PTO granted Acella’s request for ex parte reexamination of the 355

Patent on December 15, 2010 and 2) an exhibit to Medicis’ briefing that forecasts a possible

exit from the foaming pad market.

Because the PTO has granted a request for reexamination of the 355 Patent, which is

a new “fact,” the Court will grant the Motion for Reconsideration. But the Court will deny

the relief the requested by Acella. The Court will not stay proceedings for an indefinite

period of time while the PTO conducts the reexamination, especially given the procedural

posture of the case. 

Medicis filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on December 10, 2010. (Doc. 53.)

The parties have submitted their Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Docs.

122&123), and the Court set a hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction for February

23, 2011. If the Court stayed the case pending reexamination, the Court effectively would

deny the Motion for Preliminary Injunction without first addressing the merits, which would

be inappropriate. Procter & Gamble Co. v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 549 F.3d 842, 849

(Fed. Cir. 2008)(holding the district court erred in granting a stay pending reexamination

when the plaintiff had filed a motion for preliminary injunction). Because the Court has not

yet ruled on the merits of the injunction motion, the Court declines to enter a stay at this time.

If the Court grants the preliminary injunction, it most likely would not also grant a

stay. Id. (“A grant of a preliminary injunction followed by a stay of the district court

proceedings could subject an accused infringer to unfair and undesirable delay in reaching

a final resolution.”). Even if the Court denies the preliminary injunction, the Court would

not look with favor on a renewed motion to stay. In general, the Court disfavors indefinite

and potentially lengthy stays pending the outcome of external proceedings. And in this case

specifically, because Acella filed a request for an ex parte reexamination, Acella will not be

bound by the findings of the PTO. Acella would be free to continue to argue the invalidity

of the 355 Patent in this Court, no matter what the PTO finds. 

Accordingly,

Case 2:10-cv-01780-JAT Document 130 Filed 02/09/11 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

IT IS ORDERED Granting Acella’s Motion for Reconsideration (Docs. 66&72), but

denying all relief requested by Acella. The Court will not enter a stay pending reexamination

at this time. 

DATED this 9th day of February, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01780-JAT Document 130 Filed 02/09/11 Page 3 of 3