Kaavo Inc. v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, et al, C.A. Nos. 14-1192-LPS-CJB; 14-1193-LPS-CJB, April 9, 2015.

Burke, C. J.  Defendants’ motions to stay proceedings pending resolution of Rule 13 motions to dismiss are granted.

Defendants’ motions to dismiss are based on their assertion that the patent-in-suit is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under section 101. The court finds that the fact that the motions to dismiss, if decided in defendants’ favor, would be entirely case-dispositive as to all asserted claims inured to defendants’ benefit.  However, the court generally does not try to evaluate the legal merits of the motions to dismiss in deciding whether to grant the stay, and here it notes little efficiency would be gained if the motions are denied.  Here, the court finds that the prospect of simplification weighs slightly in favor of a stay.  The fact that the cases are at very early stages and discovery has not yet begun strongly favors a stay. Courts consider whether the parties are competitors, and due to the scant record on this point this factor weighs only slightly against the stay.  The timing of the stay request does not suggest gamesmanship, but the potential for substantial delay if the stay is granted weighs only slightly against the stay.  Had plaintiff made a stronger showing that the parties were competitors, the outcome might have been different.