Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/cod;;1:17-cv-00944_de382> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- cod;;1:17-cv-00944_de382 RegisterActionDate "2019-03-08" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-00944_de382 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER: Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Stay of Proceedings Related to U.S. Patent No. 9,365,822 120 . The Court prefers to proceed in an alternative fashion. On January 11, 2018, the Court dismissed XY's Counts II, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and XI under claim preclusion principles 120 . Judging by XY's reaction in pleadings filed soon thereafter, the Court gathers that XY fully intends to appeal that ruling. In addition, by order dated August 9, 2018, the Court dismissed XY's Count XII under the "Alice" patentability test 262 . The Court presumes XY will appeal that as well. Although the Court is confident in its rulings, reversal on appeal to the Federal Circuit is always a possibility. Accordingly, under XY's current proposal to stay proceedings, it is at least plausible that the Court might need to conduct three trials arising out of this one lawsuit: the already-scheduled trial this summer, now solely on Count I; a trial on Count III (regarding the 822 Patent), assuming the Federal Circuit reverses the Wisconsin decision; and a trial on one or more of the various other Counts, assuming the Federal Circuit reverses the Court's rulings as to those counts. This would be monumentally wasteful of judicial resources, and unnecessarily complicated as well, particularly as compared to allowing the Federal Circuit to establish the scope of this lawsuit sooner rather than later. Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, on or before March 15, 2019, why the Court should not enter Rule 54(b) judgment on all Counts except Counts I and III (or, alternatively, certify 120 and 262 to the Federal Circuit per 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)), and stay the entire case pending that appeal. (Such an order from this Court may also encourage the Wisconsin court to enter a similar order as to the 822 Patent, thus allowing XY to appeal all of these issues simultaneously.) The parties may file a joint response or separate responses, in their discretion. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 03/08/2019. Text Only Entry (wjmlc1) (Entered: 03/08/2019)" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-00944_de382 AdministrativeID "383" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-00944_de382 OntologyLabel order @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-00944_de382 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:17-cv-00944_de119 @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-00944_de382 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:17-cv-00944_de261 @default.