In deciding whether to stay litigation, the Court considered the customary factors of undue prejudice or tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party, simplification of issues or trial, and whether discovery is complete or the trial date set (See Stays). Read Court Order: Motion for Stay Pending Reexamination; 2009-12-16; Denied; District Judge William K. Sessions, III; Synventive Molding Solutions, Inc. v. Husky Injection Molding Systems, Inc. (2-08-cv-00136) VTD

Judge Sessions was not persuaded by Synventive’s argument that suffering ongoing harm constituted undue prejudice insofar as monetary damages would be available for past and future infringement. Nevertheless, he acknowledged that “having to undergo reexamination” may constitute a tactical disadvantage and thus the first factor weighed “slightly” in favor of a stay.

Surprisingly, the Court found that a stay would not simplify the case for trial. Judge Sessions reasoned that triable issues would remain even after the conclusion of all reexamination proceedings, necessitating further discovery. Moreover, granting a stay would “substantially increase the total time necessary to resolve this litigation” despite the PTO’s statutory mandate of special dispatch citing recent USPTO Statistics dated September 30, 2009 (See Statistics).

Last, regarding the stage of trial, both parties were near conclusion of an “unusually acrimonious discovery” period, a trial date had been set, and nothing in the Court’s opinion supported delaying resolution of the litigation. Thus, this factor weighed firmly against a stay.

The case is Synventive Molding Solutions, Inc. v. Husky Injection Molding Systems, Inc., case number 2-08-cv-00136, in the United States District Court of Vermont. The requests for ex parte reexamination have been assigned control numbers 90/009,602 for the ‘025 patent, 90/009,603 for the ‘870 patent, and 90/009,604 for the ‘116.