EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC v. SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION, C-13-03587. (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20141020595
Visitors: 13
Filed: Oct. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 17, 2014
Summary: ORDER CONFIRMING STAY RONALD M. WHYTE, District Judge. On September 26, 2014 the court conditionally granted defendants' motion to maintain the stay in the above-captioned cases. Dkt. No. 174. As a condition of its order granting defendants' motion, the court ordered defendants not participating in the ongoing inter partes review ("IPR") of the patents at suit to file a written commitment no later than October 7, 2014 agreeing to the following limited estoppel: [the non-participating party]
Summary: ORDER CONFIRMING STAY RONALD M. WHYTE, District Judge. On September 26, 2014 the court conditionally granted defendants' motion to maintain the stay in the above-captioned cases. Dkt. No. 174. As a condition of its order granting defendants' motion, the court ordered defendants not participating in the ongoing inter partes review ("IPR") of the patents at suit to file a written commitment no later than October 7, 2014 agreeing to the following limited estoppel: [the non-participating party] ..
More
ORDER CONFIRMING STAY
RONALD M. WHYTE, District Judge.
On September 26, 2014 the court conditionally granted defendants' motion to maintain the stay in the above-captioned cases. Dkt. No. 174. As a condition of its order granting defendants' motion, the court ordered defendants not participating in the ongoing inter partes review ("IPR") of the patents at suit to file a written commitment no later than October 7, 2014 agreeing to the following limited estoppel:
[the non-participating party] will not assert the invalidity of any claim on any ground raised in the IPR and on which a final written decision is rendered under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). Any dispute as to what is meant by "final written decision" or "any ground raised" will be resolved by the court.
Dkt. No. 174 at 14.1
Each non-participating defendant subsequently filed notice of their agreement to the above terms. See Dkt. Nos. 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181. Accordingly, the court hereby confirms that the related cases are stayed until final written decision in the pending IPR, the date by which a final decision is now due, or further order of the court, whichever occurs first. Dkt. No. 174, at 13-14.
Within one week of the written final decision in the IPR, the parties shall file a joint status report informing the court as to the outcome of the IPR.
FootNotes
1. The statutory estoppel of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) applies to IPR participants Apple, Yelp, and Twitter.
Source: Leagle
