Motion for Stay REALLY Denied

Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Dice Electronics, LLC et al (9-08-cv-00163) (Feb. 20. 2009)
Judge: Ron Clark
Defendant filed a motion for stay, noting that it had filed an ex parte reexamination of patent in suit.  Others may disagree, but I detected a touch of judicial disapproval in Judge Clark's order, expressed some dislike for the defendant's choice of reexamination, and well as the circumstances of the case.  "Defendants did not act with dispatch in seeking review (ed note: the motion was filed five months after the case was filed); the parties are well into the discovery process already," Judge Clark wrote.  "[S]taying the case pending outcome of an ex parte reexamination is not likely to simplify the issues. Defendants’ failure to choose the congressionally provided option of a binding inter partes reexamination smacks of a litigation tactic designed to bog down, rather than expedite, resolution of this case."
Defendants’ motion to stay was accordingly denied.