Yodlee, Inc. v. Ablaise Ltd. et al (4-06-cv-07222) CAND, Jan. 16, 2009
The litigation between the patentee and the accused parties began in 2006, while concurrent litigation was ongoing in a different district. For the following year, fact discovery was stayed in light of developments in the other litigation. On December 2008, a Reexamination Request was granted by the PTO, and the accused parties moved for a stay. The patentee opposed the motion, claiming that the litigation was already in a more advanced stage, the motion was submitted only two days away from filing the opening Markman brief and that documents related to the fact discovery in the parallel litigation were ready to go in the instant case.
The court acknowledged that the docket was "a long one", noting that 138 docket entries were made to date. However, the court went further to state that "none of those entries regard the substance of the  patent."
The Court agrees with Ablaise that extensive motion practice on the docket should be assessed in connection with the motion to stay. However, the Court concurs with the Accused Parties that same motion practice is not automatically equated with progress in the litigation, and in this case, does not negate the fact that there have been no depositions, no documents exchanged, and, according to the Accused Parties, “virtually no discovery other than discovery that the accused parties had to engage in related to the prior art. “ Reply Br. at 5. These related cases are still at an early stage of litigation, and this factor weighs in favor of a stay.
(Source: Docket Navigator)