Supercell Oy v. Rothschild Digital Media Innovations, LLC, C15-1119JLR. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20180321g84
Visitors: 14
Filed: Mar. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 20, 2018
Summary: ORDER CONTINUING STAY JAMES L. ROBART , District Judge . This matter has been stayed since July 28, 2016, pending inter partes review ("IPR") of the patent at issue by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. ( See 7/28/16 Order (Dkt. # 37) at 13.) On February 28, 2018, Defendant Rothschild Digital Media Innovations, LLC ("RDMI") filed a status report informing the court that on December 13, 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB's Fin
Summary: ORDER CONTINUING STAY JAMES L. ROBART , District Judge . This matter has been stayed since July 28, 2016, pending inter partes review ("IPR") of the patent at issue by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. ( See 7/28/16 Order (Dkt. # 37) at 13.) On February 28, 2018, Defendant Rothschild Digital Media Innovations, LLC ("RDMI") filed a status report informing the court that on December 13, 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB's Fina..
More
ORDER CONTINUING STAY
JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.
This matter has been stayed since July 28, 2016, pending inter partes review ("IPR") of the patent at issue by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. (See 7/28/16 Order (Dkt. # 37) at 13.) On February 28, 2018, Defendant Rothschild Digital Media Innovations, LLC ("RDMI") filed a status report informing the court that on December 13, 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB's Final Written Decision.1 (2/28/18 Status Rep. (Dkt. # 49) at 2.) On March 8, 2018, the court ordered the parties to submit proposals recommending how the court should proceed in light of the Federal Circuit's decision. (3/8/18 Order (Dkt. # 50) at 2.)
In response, the parties propose that the court continue the stay until there is a decision on RDMI's petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. (Pl. Resp. (Dkt. # 51) at 2; Def. Resp. (Dkt. # 52) at 2.) Given the parties' agreement and the pending petition, the court ORDERS that this case remain stayed until the court directs otherwise. The court further ORDERS RDMI to file a status report no later than ninety (90) days from the entry of this order and to file a status report every ninety (90) days until the court lifts the stay. The status report shall inform the court of the status of the petition for a writ of certiorari and/or further proceedings before the Supreme Court, the expected timeline for resolution, and any other developments affecting the resolution of this matter. If the case is resolved or there is any other significant development at any time before ninety (90) days from the entry of this order or during any subsequent 90-day interval, the court ORDERS RDMI to file a status report informing the court of that development no more than five (5) days after it occurs.
FootNotes
1. RDMI's status report states that the Federal Circuit issued its decision on December 13, 2018. (2/28/18 Status Rep. at 2.) However, the Federal Circuit decision RDMI filed with its status report confirms that the Circuit issued its decision in 2017. (Id., Ex 1 (Dkt. # 49-1) at 2.)
Source: Leagle