Mobile Tech., Inc. v. Invue Security Products Inc.

Filing 95

ORDER The 83 Amended Motion to Stay Pending Ex Parte Reexamination of All Patents-In-Suit is DENIED without prejudice to being re-filed if the USPTO issues an initial office action in its favor; the 82 Motion to Stay Pending Ex Parte Reexamination of All Patents-In-Suit and 91 Motion for Leave to File Notice of Subsequently Discovered Facts are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 12/6/2019. (mek)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-00052-KDB-DSC
MOBILE TECH INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
INVUE SECURITY PRODUCTS INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

THIS MATTER is before the Court on “Defendant’s Motion to Stay Pending Ex Parte
Reexamination of All Patents-In-Suit” (document #82), “Defendant’s Amended Motion to Stay
Pending Ex Parte Reexamination of All Patents-In-Suit” (document #83), and Plaintiff’s “Motion
for Leave to File Notice of Subsequently Discovered Facts” (document #91) as well as the parties’
briefs and exhibits.
The Court has carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the record and the authorities.
Although the United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted Defendant’s Request for Ex
Parte Re-examination of the two patents-in-suit, it has not yet issued any office action in
Defendant’s favor. See Plaintiff’s “Memorandum in Opposition …” at 4 (document #84). There
are also other pending claims in addition to the patent claims. For those reasons, the Court denies
Defendant’s Motion without prejudice to being re-filed if the USPTO issues an initial office action
in its favor.

NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that:
1. “Defendant’s Amended Motion to Stay Pending Ex Parte Reexamination of All PatentsIn-Suit” (document #83) is DENIED without prejudice to being re-filed if the USPTO issues an
initial office action in its favor. The parties are ORDERED to notify the Court when the USPTO
issues any office action on the re-examinations and as to the results of any appeals of those actions.
2. “Defendant’s Motion to Stay Pending Ex Parte Reexamination of All Patents-In-Suit”
(document #82) and Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to File Notice of Subsequently Discovered
Facts” (document #91) are DENIED AS MOOT.
3. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel for the parties, including
but not limited to moving counsel, and to the Honorable Kenneth D. Bell.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: December 6, 2019