Last week, Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury (E.D.N.Y.) denied a motion to stay a patent case pending completion of ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) proceedings challenging the validity of some but not all of the patents-in-suit. See Fleet Connect Sols. LLC v. Forward Thinking Sys. LLC, No. 2:25-cv-5178-NJC-LGD, 2026 WL 192294, at *2–4 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2026). The court reasoned that two out of three relevant factors weighed against a stay. Id.
- Factor 1: Simplification of the Issues
The first factor the court considered in deciding whether to grant a stay was whether a stay would “simplify the issues in question and trial of the case.” Id. at *2. Judge Choudhury concluded that this factor weighed against a stay because:
- Of the nine patents-in-suit, only four were subject to active EPR proceedings or appellate review by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”);
- The defendant itself did not file the EPRs and did not agree to be bound by them; and
- The defendant did not show that resolution of the EPRs would simplify the issues with respect to the five patents-in-suit not subject to the proceedings.
Id. at *2–3. The court noted that even if the PTO’s findings later impacted the litigation, the “interests of justice w[ould] be better served by dealing with that contingency when and if it occur[red].” Id. at *3.
- Factor 2: Stage of the Proceedings
The second factor the court considered was the stage of the case. Id. Judge Choudhury concluded that this factor “slightly” favored a stay because the parties had not yet commenced discovery or filed dispositive motions. Id.
- Factor 3: Undue Prejudice to Plaintiff
Judge Choudhury further concluded that the nonmoving party would be unduly prejudiced by a stay. Id. at *3–4. Although some “subfactors”—such as the timing of the EPR request, the timing of the stay request, and the relationship of the parties—tended to favor a stay, the early state of the EPR proceedings “weigh[ed] strongly” against granting an indefinite stay because the proceedings and any potential appeals could “take years to conclude.” Id.
