`
`In the United States Court of Federal Claims
`No. 15-1307C
`(Filed March 22, 2017)
`NOT FOR PUBLICATION
`
`
`
` * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*
`*
`CELLCAST TECHNOLOGIES,
`*
`LLC and ENVISIONIT, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*
`THE UNITED STATES,
`
`*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*
`
`
`
`Defendant,
`
`*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*
`INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
`*
`
`
`MACHINES CORP.,
`*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*
`
`
`Defendant-Intervenor.
`*
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*
` * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
`
`
`ORDER
`Defendants have filed a motion to stay proceedings in this case until the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) determines if it will institute, on
`petition of the United States, inter partes review of certain of plaintiffs’ patents. See
`35 U.S.C. § 314. Plaintiffs oppose this motion, citing the speculative nature of any
`effect the PTO proceedings might have on this case --- as that office has not yet
`decided if it will in fact institute a review of the patents at issue --- and the
`prejudice plaintiffs will suffer from delay. Defendants counter by arguing that a
`stay will preserve the resources of all parties, and the Court’s, as the inter partes
`review could moot, or at least simplify, the issues presented by this case.
`
`As the PTO is required to decide if it will institute an inter partes review by
`May 7, 2017, the Court does not think that staying proceedings for such a short
`period of time would meaningfully preserve the resources of the parties, or ours.
`Moreover, as the institution of review is far from certain, the Court finds this
`motion premature at this juncture of the case. See CANVS Corp. v. United States,
`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`EnvisionIT Ex. 2007, IBM v. EnvisionIT, IPR2017-01247
`
`
`
`Case 1:15-cv-01307-VJW Document 50 Filed 03/22/17 Page 2 of 2
`
`118 Fed. Cl. 587, 593 (2014) (noting that the majority of courts deny, as premature,
`requests for stays made before the PTO has decided if it will institute a review).
`Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for a stay is DENIED. Of course, if the PTO
`elects to institute the review, the Court would be willing to consider a renewed
`request for a stay, in light of the longer period involved and the probability that said
`review would assist in the resolution of this case.
`IT IS SO ORDERED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Victor J. Wolski
`VICTOR J. WOLSKI
`Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`EnvisionIT Ex. 2007, IBM v. EnvisionIT, IPR2017-01247
`
`