Naz News, Gappers and FLE's

[manny t]

VHC,

Stay denied.From IV:

It's officially filed, "Discussed reexamination status and lack of outcome predictability. Court DENIED Defendants’ Motion to Stay Pending Ongoing Reexamination"

It's official (not that Floyd's word isn't anything but), "Court DENIED Defendants’ Motion to Stay Pending Ongoing Reexamination Proceedings (Docket #477 - page 2)."


Court requested arguments from the parties on Defendants’ Motion to Stay Pending

Ongoing Reexamination Proceedings (Docket #477).

Michael Stadnick for Cisco presented arguments. Discussed proceedings at

USPTO. Discussed prior case against Microsoft. Discussed claim status for each

patent at the USPTO. Discussed legal standards. Discussed prejudice issues.

Discussed simplification of case and current litigation status.

Danny Williams for Apple presented additional arguments. Discussed status of

patents asserted against Apple at USPTO.

Doug Cawley presented arguments for Plaintiff. Discussed examples of cases

litigated while USPTO proceedings pending and unpredictability of final USPTO

actions. Discussed Soverain factors. Discussed prejudice issues. Court inquired

regarding litigation timeframe as opposed to USPTO proceedings. Mr. Cawley

responded. Discussed simplification issues. Court inquired regarding claim scope

in reexamination proceedings. Mr. Cawley responded.

Mr. Stadnick responded for Cisco. Discussed examples provided by Plaintiff and
differences in this case. Discussed priority of litigation and USPTO actions.


Court requested arguments from the parties on Defendants’ Motion to Stay Pending

Ongoing Reexamination Proceedings (Docket #477).

Michael Stadnick for Cisco presented arguments. Discussed proceedings at

USPTO. Discussed prior case against Microsoft. Discussed claim status for each

patent at the USPTO. Discussed legal standards. Discussed prejudice issues.

Discussed simplification of case and current litigation status.

Danny Williams for Apple presented additional arguments. Discussed status of

patents asserted against Apple at USPTO.

Doug Cawley presented arguments for Plaintiff. Discussed examples of cases

litigated while USPTO proceedings pending and unpredictability of final USPTO

actions. Discussed Soverain factors. Discussed prejudice issues. Court inquired

regarding litigation timeframe as opposed to USPTO proceedings. Mr. Cawley

responded. Discussed simplification issues. Court inquired regarding claim scope

in reexamination proceedings. Mr. Cawley responded.

Mr. Stadnick responded for Cisco. Discussed examples provided by Plaintiff and
differences in this case. Discussed priority of litigation and USPTO actions.


Mr. Williams responded for Apple. Discussed example of reexamination in prior

Microsoft case. Discussed current status at USPTO.

Mr. Cawley replied for Plaintiff.

Discussed reexamination status and lack of

outcome predictability.

Court DENIED Defendants’ Motion to Stay Pending Ongoing Reexamination
Proceedings (Docket #477).