<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Reexamination Center &#187; District Court &#8211; MDD</title>
	<atom:link href="http://reexamcenter.com/tag/district-court-mdd/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://reexamcenter.com</link>
	<description>Your one-stop resource for all things reexamination.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:14:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Stay Pending Reexamination Denied in Walter Kidde Portable Equip., Inc. v. Universal Security Instruments, Inc. et al (MD)</title>
		<link>http://reexamcenter.com/2009/08/motion-to-stay-walter-kidde-portable-equip-inc-v-universal-security-instruments-inc-et-al/</link>
		<comments>http://reexamcenter.com/2009/08/motion-to-stay-walter-kidde-portable-equip-inc-v-universal-security-instruments-inc-et-al/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:39:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>sternered</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Article]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[District Court - MDD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation Stay]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reexamcenter.com/2009/08/motion-to-stay-walter-kidde-portable-equip-inc-v-universal-security-instruments-inc-et-al/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Walter Kidde Portable Equip., Inc. v. Universal Security Instruments, Inc. et al, 1:08-CV-02202 (MD.D. June 19, 2009, Order) (Garbis, J.), where the court denied a joint motion to stay litigation pending completion of reexamination proceedings.  The court found that the reexamination proceedings were not pending.  Rather, &#8220;[w]hat is pending is a request by Plaintiff to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Walter Kidde Portable Equip., Inc. v. Universal Security Instruments, Inc. et al,</em> 1:08-CV-02202 (MD.D. June 19, 2009, Order) (Garbis, J.), where the court denied a joint motion to stay litigation pending completion of reexamination proceedings.  The court found that the reexamination proceedings were not pending.  Rather, &#8220;[w]hat is pending is a request by Plaintiff to the USPTO that it commence reexamination proceedings.  Thus, at some time in the future – be it a week, a month or more from now – there might be a reexamination proceeding.&#8221;  The court noted, if the USPTO grants the request for reexamination, the parties could renew their joint motion to stay litigation, which the court would consider &#8220;in light of the status of the instant litigation at that time&#8221;.</p>
<p><em><a href="http://reexamcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/walter-kidde-stay1.pdf">Walter Kidde Portable Equip., Inc. v. Universal Security Instruments, Inc. et al (pdf)</a></em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reexamcenter.com/2009/08/motion-to-stay-walter-kidde-portable-equip-inc-v-universal-security-instruments-inc-et-al/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

