N.D. Ca.: Quality, Not Quantity of Motions Is Most Relevant For Motion to Stay

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)

Patent Litigation Down? "Bollocks!" Says the Troll Tracker

While early reports are indicating that the number of patent cases have dipped slightly in 2007, the Patent Troll Tracker has done what few others have done, and has looked at patent litigation for 2007 according to the number of defendants named in complaints. Basically, the study looked at cases from PACER/ECF from the top jurisdictions between 2006-07, counted defendants, and extrapolated. Under this approach, over two-thirds of patent cases were taken into consideration.

The conclusion? According to the Patent Troll Tracker 2007 shows a 30% increase in patent litigation over 2006, fueled by a 40% increase in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Comparing 2007 to 2006, nationwide there was a 4.6% increase in patent cases, but there was a 31.5% increase in the number of defendants sued for patent infringement.


• Comparing 2007 to 2006 just for the Eastern District of Texas, there was a 37.9% increase in the number of patent cases, and there was a 40.8% increase in the number of defendants sued for patent infringement.


• Comparing 2007 to 1990, nationwide there has been over a tripling in the number of patent cases (+221%), and a quintupling in the number of defendants sued for patent infringement (+404%).

For the top 7 jurisdictions for patent litigation, the numbers came out this way:

• ED Texas: 364 patent cases, 1,402 defendants sued (151 troll cases)
• CD California: 272 patent cases, 729 defendants sued (23 troll cases)
• D New Jersey: 187 patent cases, 349 defendants sued (13 troll cases)
• D Delaware: 147 patent cases, 350 defendants sued (18 troll cases)
• ND Illinois: 137 patent cases, 261 defendants sued (26 troll cases)
• ND California: 131 patent cases, 249 defendants sued (19 troll cases)
• SD New York: 102 patent cases, 255 defendants sued (14 troll cases)
  

Notes the anonymous Troll Tracker: "I say pshaw to the notion that patent infringement increased only 4-6% in 2007. Look at the defendants sued: there was over a 30% increase this past year. That's the number that matters. Now where will 2008 fall?"

Read the full (and quite impressive) post here (link)