Patent Litigation Lawyer

Federal district court judge Ron Clark set a November 10, 2008, trial date in LunarEye vs. Webtech Wireless, a lawsuit involving alleged infringement of LunarEye’s GPS Tracking patent. Judge Ron Clark denied Webtech’s request to stay the suit indefinitely pending potential reexamination of the patent before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. More detail is provided in the press release.

Webtech’s attempt to seek ex parte reexamination of LunarEye’s patent is an increasingly common tactic in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in KSR v. Teleflex. Accused infringers request reexamination of the patent with the PTO, arguing that under the “new” obviousness standard of KSR the patent should never have been issued. In many cases, these requests involve the same prior art cited to the PTO by the patentee.

The Eastern District of Texas, however, continues to look with skepticism on the utility of staying litigation during the pendency of a reexamination. In the Eastern District, trials are typically commenced within 14-18 months of filing the lawsuit, which will almost certainly outpace the reexamination within the PTO. Judge Ward, sitting in Marshall, Texas, is particularly unlikely to grant stays. Judges Clark and Folsom, however, have granted stays in situations where the patentee is not a competitor of the accused infringer, or where the Court has not had prior dealings with the patent.

Based on rulings such as Judge Clark’s, the Eastern District of Texas remains the most efficient venue for patent litigation, and hopefully will continue in that role.

Armi Easterby