PETMATRIX LLC v. WENZHOU YUXIANG PET PRODUCT CO., LTD., 6:15-cv-344-Orl-40KRS. (2015)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20150831818
Visitors: 13
Filed: Aug. 04, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 04, 2015
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION KARLA R. SPAULDING , Magistrate Judge . TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT: This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: JOINT MOTION TO STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF INTER PARTES REVIEW (Doc. No. 38) FILED: July 27, 2015 THEREON it is RECOMMENDEDND that the motion be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The parties request that the Court stay litigation in this case pending the inter part
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION KARLA R. SPAULDING , Magistrate Judge . TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT: This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: JOINT MOTION TO STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF INTER PARTES REVIEW (Doc. No. 38) FILED: July 27, 2015 THEREON it is RECOMMENDEDND that the motion be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The parties request that the Court stay litigation in this case pending the inter parte..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KARLA R. SPAULDING, Magistrate Judge.
TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:
MOTION: JOINT MOTION TO STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF INTER PARTES REVIEW (Doc. No. 38)
FILED: July 27, 2015
THEREON it is RECOMMENDEDND that the motion be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The parties request that the Court stay litigation in this case pending the inter partes review by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") of the patent-in-suit. They advise the Court that the review may take up to eighteen months, Doc. No. 38, at 2 & n.1, unless the Patent Trial and Appeal Board decides not to institute the inter partes review.
In my experience, staying litigation pending the outcome of other proceedings that have no definite date for conclusion makes the management of the present litigation difficult. Because it appears that there may be more certainty regarding the progress of matters before the PTO as of December 26, 2015, see id. at 2, I RESPECTFULLY RECOMMEND that the Court stay the present litigation through January 8, 2016, or such earlier date as the request for inter partes review is terminated or withdrawn. I further RECOMMEND that the Court require the parties to file a joint status report regarding the proceedings in the PTO on a schedule established by the Court.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its filing shall bar an aggrieved party from challenging on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.
Source: Leagle