Latest Juxtacomm case stayed

In the continuing saga of the Juxtacomm patent tale, the case against Lanier Parking Systems has been stayed, pending the outcome of the reexamination of the patent. From Pacer:


Case 3:11-cv-00299-JRS   Document 74    Filed 07/21/11

Civil Action No. 3:11BCVB299

United States District Court
Eastern District of Virginia
Richmond Division
JUXTACOMM-TEXAS SOFTWARE, LLC, Plaintiff,
 v.
LANIER PARKING SYSTEMS OF VIRGINIA, INC. et al., Defendants.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on a Motion to Stay Case Pending Reexamination filed by Defendant Lanier Parking Systems of Virginia, Inc. (ECF No. 39). Defendants Dominion Tower Financial Associates LLC, First Tower Associates LLC, First States Investors 3500 LLC, James Center Property LLC, and Hines Riverfront Plaza, LP have joined the motion (ECF Nos. 55, 57, 65, 71), which Plaintiff JuxtaComm-Texas Software, LLC, opposes. The Court held a hearing on this matter on July 20, 2011.

Courts deciding motions to stay patent litigation pending reexamination consider the following factors:

(1) whether discovery is complete and a trial date is scheduled;
(2) whether a stay would simplify the matters at issue; and
(3) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or clearly disadvantage the non-moving party.

 NTP, Inc. v. T-Mobile, USA, Inc., No. 3:07–CV–548, 2007 WL 3254796, at *2 (E.D.Va. Nov. 2, 2007).

Each of these considerations favors granting a stay. First, the status of the reexamination is advanced when juxtaposed with the stage of litigation—that is, while the reexamination has reached the Final Office Action stage, this litigation is in its infancy. Furthermore, JuxtaComm served the Defendants after receiving a Final Office Action that rejected virtually all the claims at issue in this litigation. Next, it appears likely that final resolution of the reexamination would simplify matters in this case by indicating whether JuxtaComm has grounds to proceed in this patent infringement matter. Finally, any harms that JuxtaComm experiences as a result of a stay would be recoverable through monetary damages.

For these reasons, which will be discussed in greater detail in the forthcoming Memorandum Opinion, the Court finds that the Defendants’ request is not a dilatory litigation tactic but a reasonable request designed to prevent this litigation from proceeding under a “cloud of invalidity.” Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to stay and DIRECTS the Plaintiff to file reexamination status reports every 120 days.
Let the Clerk send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.

It is SO ORDERED.

ENTERED this 21st day of July 2011.
/s/
James R. Spencer
Chief United States District Judge