Federal Circuit: Eastern District of Texas Should Have Stayed Litigation Pending USPTO Covered Business Method Review Proceeding

by Goodwin
Contact

In January 2013, VirtualAgility Inc. (VirtualAgility) sued a host of companies in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Texas for patent infringement. Five months later, Salesforce.com (Salesforce), one of the defendants, filed a petition with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) seeking Covered Business Method (CBM) review of VirtualAgility’s asserted patent, arguing that all of the patent’s claims were invalid.

Five days after filing the petition, all of the defendants in the litigation filed a motion to stay the district court proceedings pursuant to America Invents Act (AIA) § 18(b)(1). AIA § 18(b)(1) instructs a district court to consider four factors when deciding whether to grant a stay pending a CBM review:

1. whether a stay, or the denial thereof, will simplify the issues in question and streamline the trial;

2. whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set;

3. whether a stay, or the denial thereof, would unduly prejudice the nonmoving party or present a clear tactical advantage for the moving party; and

4. whether a stay, or the denial thereof, will reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court.

According to Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), the fourth factor “places a very heavy thumb on the scale in favor of a stay,” making it “nearly impossible to imagine a scenario in which a district court would not issue a stay.” 157 Cong. Rec. S1363-65 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011).

In November 2013, the PTAB instituted the CBM review of all claims of the asserted patent. Regardless, the Eastern District of Texas court denied the motion to stay the case pending CBM review.

Leaning heavily on the first factor, the district court analyzed the long prosecution history of the patent-in-suit, noting that it spanned over 12 years, during which time the PTO considered more than 60 patent and non-patent prior art references before eventually granting the patent. The court further undertook a detailed review of the PTAB’s decision to institute and said it was not convinced that the PTAB would cancel the claims at the end of the review.

As a result, the district court concluded that this factor did not favor a stay of the case. The district court also found that VirtualAgility and Salesforce were direct competitors, and a stay would likely prejudice VirtualAgility. Finally, the district court reviewed the fourth statutory factor, stating that “[h]ad Congress deemed [the burden of litigation factor] so overwhelming as to justify a stay in and of itself, the statute would have been written differently. Absent such a different statutory provision, relief from a burden inherent to all CBM reviews cannot reasonably serve as the sole basis for tipping the fourth factor in favor of granting a stay.”

Following the denial of the motion to stay, Salesforce took advantage of the new AIA immediate interlocutory appeal to the Federal Circuit for denial of a stay pending CBM review, and in February 2014, the Federal Circuit stayed the district court litigation pending its disposition of Salesforce’s motion to stay pending appeal.

The Federal Circuit decided the appeal on the merits on July 10. In its decision, the Federal Circuit held that the district court had “clearly erred” in finding that the first factor was neutral or slightly against a stay, and in finding that the fourth factor weighed only slightly in favor of a stay. It held that those two factors strongly favored a stay and that the district court improperly “reviewed” the PTAB’s determination that the claims of the asserted patent were more likely than not invalid, finding that such a review was an improper collateral attack on the PTAB’s institution decision.

Removing that improper review, the Federal Circuit found that the remaining evidence weighed heavily in favor of a stay. Specifically, the fact that the PTAB granted CBM review on all asserted claims on two separate alternative grounds was significant because the review could dispose of the entire litigation.

The Federal Circuit also found that the district court had erred in weighing the second factor, finding that it strongly favored a stay. The Federal Circuit held that generally, the status of the case at the time the motion to stay is filed was the relevant time to measure the stage of litigation. In this case, the litigation was in its infancy when the motion to stay was filed, and even considering the status of the litigation at the time the petition was instituted, the case was still in its early stages.

The Federal Circuit also found that the district court had erred in weighing the third factor, finding that although VirtualAgility and Salesforce were in the same business space, evidence of competition was weak and a stay would only delay, not diminish, monetary damages that VirtualAgility could recover. Finally, the Federal Circuit noted that the fact that VirtualAgility did not move for a preliminary injunction contradicted its argument that it needed permanent injunctive relief as soon as possible.

The litigation will now remain stayed pending the conclusion of the CBM review.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Goodwin | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Goodwin
Contact
more
less

Goodwin on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.