Stays Pending Re-Examination in the Eastern District of Virginia (Updated)
Following up on our earlier post here, Judge Spencer has issued his Memorandum Opinion, found here, detailing his reasons for issuing a stay pending reexamination in JuxtaComm-Texas Software, LLC v. Lanier Parking Systems of Virginia, Inc., Case No. 3:11CV299 (E.D.Va. Aug. 1, 2011) (Spencer, J.). The opinion reiterates that the factor distinguishing JuxtaComm from cases where stays have been denied is that the PTO had issued a Final Office Action rejecting the claims at issue before the Complaint was served. JuxtaComm argued that it was prejudiced by the slow speed of the reexamination process. On the contrary, Judge Spencer, held, a stay "would permit JuxtaComm to race to the finish line in litigation it pursued after learning that the PTO had rejected virtually all of its claims."
