UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`SOLMETEX, LLC,
`Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
`v.
`ASCENTCARE DENTAL PRODUCTS,
`INC.,
`Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
`Case No. 1:24-cv-00954-RJJ-MV
`Hon. Robert J. Jonker
`DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION TO STAY
`Case 1:24-cv-00954-RJJ-MV ECF No. 38, PageID.2664 Filed 07/11/25 Page 1 of 25
`Solmetex Ex. 2001
`Ascentcare Dental Products v. Solmetex - IPR2025-01065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`Table of Contents
`Page
`Table of Authorities ....................................................................................................... ii
`I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
`II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 1
`A. Issues in Suit and Status of the Proceedings .......................................... 5
`B. Ascentcare’s Fillings for Inter Partes Review and Post-
`Grant Review ............................................................................................ 6
`III. ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................... 7
`A. Inter Partes Review and Post Grant Review Proceedings ...................... 7
`B. Legal Standards for Motions to Stay Pending IPR/PGR ...................... 10
`C. The Court Should Stay the Litigation During Inter Partes
`Review and Post-Grant Review of the Asserted Utility
`Patents .................................................................................................... 11
`1. This Litigation Is in Its Early Stages ......................................... 11
`2. Granting a Stay Will Simplify the Litigation ............................. 12
`3. A Stay Will Not Unduly Prejudice Solmetex .............................. 14
`4. The Unchallenged Design Patents Should Not
`Prevent a Stay ............................................................................. 15
`5. The Competing Lanham Act Claims Should Not
`Prevent a Stay ............................................................................. 17
`IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 18
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................................ 19
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................... 20
`Case 1:24-cv-00954-RJJ-MV ECF No. 38, PageID.2665 Filed 07/11/25 Page 2 of 25
`Solmetex Ex. 2001
`Ascentcare Dental Products v. Solmetex - IPR2025-01065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`Table of Authorities
` Page(s)
`Cases
`Acantha LLC v. Depuy Synthes Sales Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-1257, 2016 WL 8201780 (E.D. Wis. June 6, 2016) .............................. 12
`Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ................................................... 9
`ASCII Corp. v. STD Entertainment USA, Inc.,
`844 F. Supp. 1378 (N.D. Cal. 1994) ....................................................................... 10
`Asetek Holdings, Inc. v. Cooler Master Co.,
`No. 13-CV-00457-JST, 2014 WL 1350813 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2014) ..................... 14
`Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. NXP Semiconductors, N.V.,
`2022 WL 1447948 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2022) .......................................................... 16
`Berry Sterling Corp. v. Pescor Plastics, Inc.,
`122 F.3d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................... 15
`Black & Decker Inc. v. Positec USA, Inc.,
`No. 13 C 3075, 2013 WL 5718460 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 1, 2013)..................................... 14
`Blast Motion, Inc. v. Zepp Labs, Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-700 JLS (NLS), 2016 WL 5107678 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 29,
`2016) .................................................................................................................. 11, 14
`e-Imagedata Corp v. Digital Check Corp,
`No. 16-CV-576, 2017 WL 657462 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 17, 2017) ................................. 14
`e-Watch, Inc. v. Mobotix Corp,
`No. SA-12-CA-492-FB, 2013 WL 12091167 (W.D. Tex. May 21,
`2013) ........................................................................................................................ 13
`Equipements de Transformation IMAC v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., Inc.,
`559 F. Supp. 2d 809 (E.D. Mich. 2008) .................................................................. 10
`Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg,
`849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................................... 10
`Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc.,
`721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................. 8
`Case 1:24-cv-00954-RJJ-MV ECF No. 38, PageID.2666 Filed 07/11/25 Page 3 of 25
`Solmetex Ex. 2001
`Ascentcare Dental Products v. Solmetex - IPR2025-01065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`Ignite USA, LLC v. Pacific Market International, LLC,
`No. 14 C 856, 2014 WL 2505166 (N.D. Ill. May 29, 2014) .................................... 13
`Kopp Dev., Inc. v. Metrasens, Inc.,
`No. 1:21-CV-01216-PAB, 2024 WL 4826381 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 19,
`2024) ........................................................................................................................ 11
`Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co.,
`667 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................... 13
`Luv N' Care, Ltd. v. Regent Baby Products Corp.,
`2014 WL 572524 (S.D. N.Y. 2014) ......................................................................... 16
`Marine Polymer Techs., Inc. v. HemCon, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................... 15
`Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v. Johns Hopkins University,
`2024 WL 3252974 (D. Md. 2024)............................................................................ 17
`Metro Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc.,
`2024 WL 323374 (S.D. N.Y. 2024) ......................................................................... 16
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship,
`564 U.S. 91 (2011) .................................................................................................... 8
`Microsoft Corp. v. Tivo Inc.,
`2011 WL 1748428 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2011) ........................................................... 11
`Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp. v. Hilti, Inc.,
`138 F.Supp.3d 1032 (E.D. Wis. 2015) .............................................................. 12, 13
`Orbital Australia Pty v. Daimler AG,
`No. 15-CV-12398, 2015 WL 5439774 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 15, 2015) ........................ 11
`Out Rage, LLC v. New Archery Prods. Corp.,
`No. 11-CV-701-BBC, 2012 WL 12995533 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 9, 2012) ................. 9, 13
`Regents of Univ. of Michigan v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`No. 12-12908, 2013 WL 2393340 (E.D. Mich. May 31, 2013) ............................... 17
`Seaquist Closures LLC v. Rexam Plastics,
`No. 08-C-0106, 2008 WL 4691792 (E.D. Wis. Oct 22, 2008) ................................... 8
`Serv. Sol. U.S. LLC v. Autel.US Inc.,
`No. 13-10534, 2015 WL 401009 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 28, 2015) ................................. 12
`Case 1:24-cv-00954-RJJ-MV ECF No. 38, PageID.2667 Filed 07/11/25 Page 4 of 25
`Solmetex Ex. 2001
`Ascentcare Dental Products v. Solmetex - IPR2025-01065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-03970-RMW, 2013 WL 5225522 (N.D. Cal. Sept 17, 2013) ................ 7, 8
`Sorensen v. Black & Decker Corp.,
`No. 06cv1572 BTM (CAB), 2007 WL 2696590 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 10,
`2007) ........................................................................................................................ 11
`Sport Dimension, Inc. v. The Coleman Company, Inc.,
`820 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................... 15
`St. Martin Invs., Inc. v. Bandit Indus., Inc.,
`No. 1:17-CV-472, 2017 WL 6816506 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 30, 2017) .................... 1, 11
`VPR Brands, LP v. MONQ, LLC,
`599 F. Supp. 3d 714 (M.D. Tenn. 2022) ................................................................. 11
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 ............................................................................................... 8
`35 U.S.C. §112 ................................................................................................................ 5
`35 U.S.C. § 171 ............................................................................................................. 15
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ............................................................................................................... 8
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .......................................................................................................... 8
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) ...................................................................................................... 9
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e)........................................................................................................... 8
`35 U.S.C. § 321 ............................................................................................................... 9
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ........................................................................................................ 10
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.102(a)(1) ................................................................................................. 6
`Changes to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, 77 Fed. Reg. at
`48,680 (codified at 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100 et seq.) ....................................................... 7
`Case 1:24-cv-00954-RJJ-MV ECF No. 38, PageID.2668 Filed 07/11/25 Page 5 of 25
`Solmetex Ex. 2001
`Ascentcare Dental Products v. Solmetex - IPR2025-01065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`District courts have broad discretion to stay proceedings pending inter partes
`review (“IPR”) of asserted patents pursuant to their inherent authority to control
`their dockets. St. Martin Invs., Inc. v. Bandit Indus., Inc., No. 1:17-CV-472, 2017 WL
`6816506, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 30, 2017). Here, Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc.
`(“Ascentcare”) has filed seven petitions for IPR and post-grant review (“PGR”) with
`the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (“PTAB”)—one petition for each utility patent.
`The petitions will likely result in many, if not all, asserted claims being invalidated.
`The PTAB’s rulings will likely narrow the scope of this case. Therefore, Ascentcare
`respectfully requests that this Court stay these proceedings.
`II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`Ascentcare is a family-owned
`business founded in West Michigan.
`Ascentcare and Solmetex are competitors in
`the field of dental isolation mouthpieces,
`though Ascentcare is currently significantly
`smaller.
`In 2020, Ascentcare began
`developing a dental isolation mouthpiece
`known as “VacuLUX”. The VacuLUX
`mouthpiece (shown right) performs four
`functions during a dental procedure: suction
`of the intraoral cavity, tongue suppression,
`Case 1:24-cv-00954-RJJ-MV ECF No. 38, PageID.2669 Filed 07/11/25 Page 6 of 25
`Solmetex Ex. 2001
`Ascentcare Dental Products v. Solmetex - IPR2025-01065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`cheek retraction, and passive opening of the patient’s mouth. Ascentcare based its
`design on the Zyris Isolite mouthpiece, a design whose patents expired in 2019.
`Sportel Dec. ¶ 2, Ex. A. Like the Isolite mouthpiece, the Ascentcare mouthpiece is
`designed like a butterfly and includes a central spine and four flaps (two anterior,
`two posterior) each extending from the spine.
`In 2020, another dental isolation mouthpiece, called Dryshield, was on the
`market, and Dryshield only had one
`utility patent (U.S. 8,911,232, “the ’232
`Patent”) directed to a mouthpiece at that
`time. When Ascentcare developed and
`announced the VacuLUX mouthpiece,
`none of the asserted patents existed.
`Sportel Decl, ¶ 3, Ex. B; ECF 35, ¶¶ 15–
`24. The ’232 Patent does not cover the
`VacuLUX mouthpiece, else Solmetex would have asserted patent infringement
`Ascentcare VacuLUX Zyris Isolite
`Sidewall
`Case 1:24-cv-00954-RJJ-MV ECF No. 38, PageID.2670 Filed 07/11/25 Page 7 of 25
`Solmetex Ex. 2001
`Ascentcare Dental Products v. Solmetex - IPR2025-01065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`against Ascentcare’s mouthpiece when it was launched in 2020 (or in this lawsuit).
`In fact, before May 2023, Solmetex/Dryshield never contended that a mouthpiece
`having a central spine violated any of its patents. Nor could it, as another competitor,
`Isolite, held patents directed to an isolation mouthpiece having a central spine when
`Solmetex filed its patents. Ex. A, col. 15, ℓ. 53. Instead, Solmetex designed around the
`Isolite patents, by forming a mouthpiece with an internal pocket having sidewalls
`and an internal “bridge structure” to collectively replace the various functions of a
`central spine. Ex. B, col. 6, ℓℓ. 25–41. Thus, Asce ntcare felt confident that it did no t
`violate Solmetex’s intellectual property so long as its design included a public-
`domain, central spine and excluded a pocket with enclosing sidewalls.
`Unhappy with a new competitor with a superior product, Solmetex contrived a
`strategy to hinder Ascentcare. Soon after Ascentcare announced its product,
`Dryshield began an aggressive, targeted continuation patent application practice
`manipulating claim language and stretching its patent disclosure beyond what it
`originally envisioned. In one patent family alone, Solmetex has filed sixteen U.S.
`continuation patent applications, eight of which were filed after the VacuLUX
`launched. Sportel Dec. ¶ 4, Ex. C. In addition, Solmetex amended claims in three
`pending applications demonstrating a dramatic pivot in claim scope. Specifically,
`Solmetex removed the sidewalls limitation entirely one month after Ascentcare’s
`announcement. Sportel Dec. ¶ 5, 15-16 Ex. D, J-K. Notably, the VacuLUX
`mouthpieces lack any sidewalls. After obtaining new patents through this aggressive
`Case 1:24-cv-00954-RJJ-MV ECF No. 38, PageID.2671 Filed 07/11/25 Page 8 of 25
`Solmetex Ex. 2001
`Ascentcare Dental Products v. Solmetex - IPR2025-01065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`continuation practice, Solmetex’s counsel sent a letter to Ascentcare alleging
`infringement of four patents. ECF 35, Ex. J.
`Ascentcare took this letter seriously. It responded, explaining why the
`infringement claims were incorrect. Sportel Dec. ¶ 6, Ex. E. Solmetex then obtained
`more patents using Ascentcare’s non-infringement letter as a guide to draft new
`patent claims.
`In 2023, Ascentcare decided to redesign the VacuLUX mouthpiece to both
`further distinguish Solmetex’s patents and develop improvements based on customer
`feedback. Ascentcare notified Solmetex of the redesign and considered the matter
`settled. ECF 35, ¶ 33. Unsatisfied, Solmetex filed this lawsuit and sought more even
`more patent claims trying to cover the new design. Accordingly, Solmetex is using the
`extraordinary cost of patent litigation to harm the much smaller Ascentcare.
`Solmetex’s claim language manipulation has led to Ascentcare identifying
`numerous written description errors, anticipation problems, and obviousness issues
`because Solmetex is attempting to recapture ideas that are in the public domain. ECF
`17, Affirm. Defenses 2-9. The IPRs and PGR tackle many of these patentability issues
`and demonstrate to the PTAB how Solmetex has changed its theory of what it
`purportedly invented. Sportel Dec. ¶ 7, Ex. F. Importantly, Ascentcare’s IPRs assert
`a foreign prior art reference never considered by the Patent Office—a reference that
`shows a mouthpiece with enclosing sidewalls, the supposed original point of novelty.
`Id. at p. 14-18, 51-57. In addition, Ascentcare filed a post-grant review petition, which
`demonstrates to the PTAB how Solmetex changed its original written description to
`Case 1:24-cv-00954-RJJ-MV ECF No. 38, PageID.2672 Filed 07/11/25 Page 9 of 25
`Solmetex Ex. 2001
`Ascentcare Dental Products v. Solmetex - IPR2025-01065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`cover Ascentcare’s product. Sportel Dec. ¶ 8, Ex. G, pp. 70-80. The PTAB is uniquely
`positioned to recognize and address these improprieties, and the Court should defer
`to the PTAB by staying the case.
`The Patent Office is a much more efficient venue to address the questionable
`validity of Solmetex’s patent claims. To preserve the resources of both the Court and
`the parties, Ascentcare requests a stay of the litigation until the PTAB decides
`whether to institute IPRs. Under the PTAB’s rules, such decisions occur between
`November 20, 2025, and mid-December 2025. Ascentcare respectfully requests the
`stay lasts until 30 days after the PTAB issues the last institution decision, at which
`time the Court and the parties can reconsider whether the stay should be continued.
`A. Issues in Suit and Status of the Proceedings
`Solmetex asserted infringement of ten patents, making this a large,
`complicated, and costly case. ECF No. 35. There are numerous defenses and legal
`issues present in this case. ECF No. 17, Affirm. Defenses 1–13. Ascentcare has strong
`invalidity positions, not only based on the prior art, but also based on lack of written
`description under 35 U.S.C. §112. Moreover, Ascentcare is not liable for infringement
`after the issuance of the patents under the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel
`because Ascentcare made substantial investments in the VacuLUX before the patents
`issued. ECF 17, Affirm. Defenses 2-9.
`Solmetex has done little to advance the litigation or narrow issues in dispute.
`Instead, Solmetex added patents to the case at every opportunity. ECF Nos. 13, 35.
`Solmetex even moved to add a new patent because it incorrectly believed that this
`Case 1:24-cv-00954-RJJ-MV ECF No. 38, PageID.2673 Filed 07/11/25 Page 10 of
`25
`Solmetex Ex. 2001
`Ascentcare Dental Products v. Solmetex - IPR2025-01065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`patent’s presence would help prevent a stay.1 ECF 28, p. 6. This failed gamesmanship
`was argued to the Court as a purported benefit. Id.
`Ascentcare has not yet answered the Second Amended Complaint. While some
`initial written discovery has been exchanged, there is much still to do. No depositions
`have occurred. Sportel Decl., ¶ 9. The Markman hearing is not scheduled until
`December 15, 2025, and briefing has not yet occurred. ECF No. 18-1. Fact discovery
`does not close until January 21, 2026, and expert discovery has not even begun. Id.
`No trial date is set. Id.
`B. Ascentcare’s Fillings for Inter Partes Review and Post-Grant
`Review
`Ascentcare has filed six IPR petitions and one post-grant review (“PGR”)
`petition. Sportel Decl., ¶ 10. The invalidity arguments set forth in the IPR petitions
`are strong. Solmetex did not invent dental isolation mouthpieces. Indeed, Solmetex’s
`purported invention is virtually identical to what already existed in the prior art.
`1 37 C.F.R. § 42.102(a)(1).
`Isolite Solmetex
`Case 1:24-cv-00954-RJJ-MV ECF No. 38, PageID.2674 Filed 07/11/25 Page 11 of
`25
`Solmetex Ex. 2001
`Ascentcare Dental Products v. Solmetex - IPR2025-01065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`Furthermore, the IPR petitions presented prior art and grounds never considered by
`the patent examiner and render the currently asserted claims unpatentable.
`III. ARGUMENT
`A. Inter Partes Review and Post Grant Review Proceedings
`Congress created IPR proceedings as a cost-effective alternative to litigation.
`Sportel Decl., ¶ 13. They allow “the agency with expertise [the Patent Office] to have
`the first crack at cancelling any claims that should not have issued in the patents-in-
`suit before costly litigation continues.” Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook,
`Inc., No. 12-cv-03970-RMW, 2013 WL 5225522, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sept 17, 2013). IPRs
`were implemented to “establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system that
`will improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation
`costs.” Changes to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,680
`(codified at 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100 et seq.).
`Indeed, Congress intended IPRs to “provide[] more coordination between
`district court infringement litigation and inter partes review to reduce duplication of
`“Mr Thirsty” Korean Prior Art
`Case 1:24-cv-00954-RJJ-MV ECF No. 38, PageID.2675 Filed 07/11/25 Page 12 of
`25
`Solmetex Ex. 2001
`Ascentcare Dental Products v. Solmetex - IPR2025-01065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`efforts and costs.” Id. at 48,721. To this end, similar to the old inter partes
`reexaminations, IPRs “allow[] courts to avoid expending unnecessary judicial
`resources by attempting to resolve claims which may be amended, eliminated or
`lucidly narrowed” by the PTO “and the expertise of its officers.” Seaquist Closures LLC
`v. Rexam Plastics, No. 08-C-0106, 2008 WL 4691792, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Oct 22, 2008).
`An IPR can request cancellation of patent claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and
`103. 35 U.S.C. § 311. The validity of the claims is reviewed under a preponderance of
`the evidence standard of proof, 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), in contrast to the clear and
`convincing standard applicable to litigation. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564
`U.S. 91, 95 (2011).
`The PTAB will institute an IPR if “there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The IPR is conducted before a panel of three technically-
`trained Administrative Patent Judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Id. at
`§§ 6(a)-(b); § 311. The Patent Office must issue a final IPR determination within one
`year of a petition’s institution. Id. at § 316(a)(11).
`Conclusions in IPR proceedings are binding in concurrent infringement
`litigation. Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013). If
`during IPR “the original claim is cancelled or amended to cure invalidity, the
`patentee’s cause of action is extinguished and the suit fails.” Id. at 1340. On the other
`hand, if the claims survive IPR, the petitioner is estopped from asserting that a claim
`Case 1:24-cv-00954-RJJ-MV ECF No. 38, PageID.2676 Filed 07/11/25 Page 13 of
`25
`Solmetex Ex. 2001
`Ascentcare Dental Products v. Solmetex - IPR2025-01065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`is invalid “on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised
`during that inter partes review.” 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2).
`“Shifting validity issues to the Patent and Trademark Office has several
`advantages, including: (1) the benefit to the court of [USPTO personnel’s] expert
`analysis of the prior art; (2) the possibility that the outcome of the reexamination will
`encourage settlement; (3) the limitation of issues, defenses and evidence following
`reexamination; and (4) the likely reduction of costs for the parties and the court.” Out
`Rage, LLC v. New Archery Prods. Corp., No. 11-CV-701-BBC, 2012 WL 12995533, at
`*3 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 9, 2012). These advantages are significant. A high percentage of
`claims are ultimately found unpatentable in PTAB trials. In 2024, the PTAB
`instituted IPR/PGR on 74% of patents challenged, and of the trials that reached a
`final written decision, 70% found all challenged claims unpatentable and 85% found
`at least one claim unpatentable. Sportel Decl., ¶ 11–12, Ex. H, pp. 7, 10, Ex. I, p. 7.
`These same benefits apply to post-grant review. Post-grant review is largely
`the same as an IPR proceeding, but a Petitioner may challenge claims under §§ 101
`and 112 as well as §§ 102/103. 35 U.S.C. § 321(b). Post-grant review is only available
`nine months after patent issuance for most patents. 35 U.S.C. § 321(c). Otherwise, a
`post-grant review trial is largely similar to an inter partes review trial.
`Solmetex is likely to argue that changes to the PTAB’s discretionary denial
`policy under the new Director weigh against a stay. However, none of the
`discretionary denial factors help Solmetex. Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019,
`Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020). No trial date is set, and this litigation is still in its
`Case 1:24-cv-00954-RJJ-MV ECF No. 38, PageID.2677 Filed 07/11/25 Page 14 of
`25
`Solmetex Ex. 2001
`Ascentcare Dental Products v. Solmetex - IPR2025-01065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`infancy. Solmetex may also argue that a significant portion of the prior art in the
`IPRs was also cited during prosecution. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). But that argument ignores
`the never-before-seen foreign reference, and it is important to remember that
`Solmetex changed patent scope one month after Ascentcare’s product announcement.
`The Examiner was led into believing that Solmetex claimed a mouthpiece with
`enclosing sidewalls for seven years, while Solmetex now contends its patent is
`broader. Ex. D, pp. 2, 16, 28. Thus, the prior art previously cited is again applicable.
`Also, Ascentcare applied the prior art cited during prosecution in the exact same
`manner in the IPRs as the Examiner did during prosecution, so the previously
`considered art is still very relevant.
`B. Legal Standards for Motions to Stay Pending IPR/PGR
`District courts have the inherent power to manage their dockets and stay
`proceedings, including in response to proceedings at the Patent Office. Ethicon, Inc.
`v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426-27 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). In determining whether to stay
`litigation pending PTAB review, district courts consider the following three factors:
`“(1) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set; (2) whether
`a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case; and (3) whether a stay
`would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving
`party.” Equipements de Transformation IMAC v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., Inc., 559 F.
`Supp. 2d 809, 815 (E.D. Mich. 2008).
`Courts have adopted “a liberal policy in favor of granting motions to stay
`proceedings pending the outcome of USPTO reexamination or reissuance
`proceedings.” ASCII Corp. v. STD Entertainment USA, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 1378, 1381
`Case 1:24-cv-00954-RJJ-MV ECF No. 38, PageID.2678 Filed 07/11/25 Page 15 of
`25
`Solmetex Ex. 2001
`Ascentcare Dental Products v. Solmetex - IPR2025-01065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`(N.D. Cal. 1994). Even when a lawsuit involves claims beyond patent infringement
`claims, courts stay cases pending IPR. Kopp Dev., Inc. v. Metrasens, Inc. , No. 1:21-
`CV-01216-PAB, 2024 WL 4826381, at *4 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 19, 2024).
`C. The Court Should Stay the Litigation During Inter Partes
`Review and Post-Grant Review of the Asserted Utility Patents
`1. This Litigation Is in Its Early Stages
`This case is in a relatively early stage. Claim construction proceedings have
`not begun. Some written discovery has occurred, but no depositions have been taken.
`Sportel Decl., ¶ 9. This strongly favors a stay. This court has granted a stay in view
`of inter partes review cases when a stay is sought early in discovery, as here.
`St. Martin, 2017 WL 6816506, at *2. Even if claim construction briefing or position
`exchange had occurred, courts still stay litigation in view of IPR filings. VPR Brands,
`LP v. MONQ, LLC, 599 F. Supp. 3d 714, 719 (M.D. Tenn. 2022); Orbital Australia Pty
`v. Daimler AG, No. 15-CV-12398, 2015 WL 5439774, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 15, 2015).
`The question is not so much what has occurred, but rather what is left to complete.
`See Sorensen v. Black & Decker Corp., No. 06cv1572 BTM (CAB), 2007 WL 2696590,
`at *4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2007). “In other words, if a significant amount of discovery
`remains, a stay is more appropriate.” Blast Motion, Inc. v. Zepp Labs, Inc ., No. 15-
`CV-700 JLS (NLS), 2016 WL 5107678, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2016). Here, most of
`the casework remains.
`No trial date has been set. This fact, like the fact that discovery is only in its
`nascent stage, weighs in favor of a stay. Microsoft Corp. v. Tivo Inc. , 2011 WL
`1748428, at *6 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2011) (finding this factor weighed in favor of a stay
`Case 1:24-cv-00954-RJJ-MV ECF No. 38, PageID.2679 Filed 07/11/25 Page 16 of
`25
`Solmetex Ex. 2001
`Ascentcare Dental Products v. Solmetex - IPR2025-01065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`despite parties’ efforts in preparing for claim construction because “neither the
`tutorial nor the claim construction hearing has occurred”).
`2. Granting a Stay Will Simplify the Litigation
`“[I]t is clearly consistent with the fundamental purpose of the IPR procedure
`that a stay of litigation pending IPR has the potential to simplify the issues to be
`litigated, and to do so in a ‘streamlined’ fashion.” Acantha LLC v. Depuy Synthes Sales
`Inc., No. 15-CV-1257, 2016 WL 8201780, at *1 (E.D. Wis. June 6, 2016). Because of
`the manipulation of the patent applications during prosecution, combined with the
`lower burden of proof in IPRs/PGR and the material prior art and invalidity grounds
`that were never before the examiner, it is highly likely that IPRs/PGR of all seven
`asserted, utility patents will be instituted. Moreover, if instituted, it is likely that
`many, if not all, asserted claims of the asserted patents will be found unpatentable.
`This prediction is supported by Patent Office’s statistical analysis showing that, in a
`large percentage of IPRs, some or all challenged claims were found unpatentable. Ex.
`H; Ex. I. District courts rely on these statistics in finding “the likelihood of
`simplification of at least some of the issues in this case is high, and certainly cannot
`be described as merely speculative.” Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp. v. Hilti, Inc ., 138
`F.Supp.3d 1032, 1039 (E.D. Wis. 2015).
`Even where other claims and issues will not be resolved through IPR, the IPRs
`will still simplify issues. “[T]he question is merely whether the issues will be
`simplified, and not whether the entire case will be resolved.” Milwaukee Elec., 138
`F.Supp.3d at 1038 (citing Serv. Sol. U.S. LLC v. Autel.US Inc. , No. 13-10534, 2015
`WL 401009, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 28, 2015). For example, if only some claims are
`Case 1:24-cv-00954-RJJ-MV ECF No. 38, PageID.2680 Filed 07/11/25 Page 17 of
`25
`Solmetex Ex. 2001
`Ascentcare Dental Products v. Solmetex - IPR2025-01065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`canceled, the parties will not have to address claim construction, validity or
`infringement of those claims. Milwaukee Elec., 138 F.Supp.3d at 1039. “Moreover,
`even in the event that none of the claims are invalidated, the Court will still benefit
`from the USPTO’s expertise in evaluating the scope and validity of those claims,” id.,
`and “plaintiff may make prosecution disclaimers that bear on the construction of the
`[patent] claims,” Out Rage, ECF 72 at p. 7 (citing Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co., 667 F.3d
`1261, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In any event, “if the PTO declines inter partes review,
`little time is lost, but if the PTO grants inter partes review, the promise is greater for
`an important contribution by the PTO to resolution of the governing issues in the
`litigation.” e-Watch, Inc. v. Mobotix Corp, No. SA-12-CA-492-FB, 2013 WL 12091167,
`at *8 (W.D. Tex. May 21, 2013). Should the Patent Office cancel all asserted claims of
`the asserted, utility patents, the case is significantly simplified. On the other hand,
`if some of the claims of the asserted patents survive IPR, estoppel would trigger, and
`the Patent Office’s insight will certainly aid this Court and the parties in focusing the
`issues. This factor strongly favors a stay.
`There is a reasonable likelihood that this Court could expend significant time
`and resources litigating issues that could very well be rendered moot by an IPR
`decision. Ignite USA, LLC v. Pacific Market International, LLC , No. 14 C 856, 2014
`WL 2505166, at *4 (N.D. Ill. May 29, 2014). “The risk that the PTAB’s decision will
`require the parties and the court to repeat expensive and time-consuming aspects of
`the case actually works in favor of, rather than against, granting a stay.” e-Imagedata
`Case 1:24-cv-00954-RJJ-MV ECF No. 38, PageID.2681 Filed 07/11/25 Page 18 of
`25
`Solmetex Ex. 2001
`Ascentcare Dental Products v. Solmetex - IPR2025-01065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`Corp v. Digital Check Corp , No. 16-CV-576, 2017 WL 657462, at *4 (E.D. Wis. Feb.
`17, 2017).
`Because the parties and the Court have expended very little time and resources
`on this litigation, but could expend substantial resources that could be wasted, this
`factor strongly favors a stay.
`3. A Stay Will Not Unduly Prejudice Solmetex
`The requested stay is not sought for tactical advantage, but rather to avoid the
`financial expense and risks of inconsistency inherent in multiple proceedings.
`A