Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02454/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02454-44/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 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 1

The motion to change time, by which defendants seek to have the motion to stay

heard on shortened time, is DENIED as moot.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STORUS CORPORATION,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

AROA MARKETING, INC., et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-06-2454 MMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS FOR STAY PENDING

REEXAMINATION AND TO CHANGE

TIME

Before the Court is defendants’ “Motion for Stay Pending Reexamination of the

Patent-in-Suit” and “Motion to Change Time Pursuant to Local Rule 6-3,” both filed

February 19, 2008. Plaintiff has filed opposition to the motion to change time, to which

defendants have replied. Having read and considered the motion to stay, the Court finds

no opposition is necessary, and rules as follows.1

Three weeks before trial of the above-titled cause is set to commence, defendants

filed the instant motion to stay the trial in light of defendants’ having recently filed with the

Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) a request for reexamination of one of the two

patents-at-issue herein.

//

Case 3:06-cv-02454-MMC Document 257 Filed 02/25/08 Page 1 of 2
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

“Parties should not be permitted to abuse the reexamination process by applying for

reexamination after protracted, expensive discovery or trial preparation.” Xerox Corp. v.

3Com Corp., 69 F. Supp. 2d 404, 407 (W.D. N.Y. 1999.) Indeed, a “clear rule [has]

developed in cases considering stays that, where [ ] discovery has commenced, claim

construction has been briefed, and dispositive motions have been filed and disposed of,

courts should not grant stays for reexamination before the PTO.” See Fresenius Medical

Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, 2007 WL 1655625 (N.D. Cal. 2007). Such “clear rule” is

wholly applicable herein, particularly given that discovery has been completed, no claims

remain to be construed, and no pretrial matters remain pending, other than the Court’s

consideration of fully-briefed motions in limine. Further, defendants have not pursued any

theory of invalidity herein. Moreover, the opinion on which defendants intend to rely in

seeking reconsideration was decided in April 2007, and defendants fail to set forth any

reason, let alone good cause, for their having delayed the filing of a request for

reexamination until essentially the eve of trial.

Accordingly, the motion to stay is hereby DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 25, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02454-MMC Document 257 Filed 02/25/08 Page 2 of 2