- ALJ Shaw Denies Motion For Stay In Certain Video Analytics Software (337-TA-852)
- September 27, 2012 | Authors: John F. Presper; Eric W. Schweibenz
- Law Firm: Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P. - Alexandria Office
On September 10, 2012, ALJ David P. Shaw issued Order No. 4 denying respondent PELCO Inc.’s (“PELCO”) motion for a temporary stay in Certain Video Analytics Software, Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-852).
According to the Order, PELCO moved for a temporary stay of the investigation pending the issuance of an initial determination (“ID”) in Investigation No. 337-TA-795, in which complainant ObjectVideo, Inc. (“ObjectVideo”) asserted the four patents at issue in this investigation against respondents unrelated to PELCO. PELCO argued that a stay would simplify the issues in this investigation because any finding that an ObjectVideo patent asserted in the 795 investigation is invalid would apply equally in this investigation, and because all four asserted patents are currently undergoing reexamination at the USPTO which has rejected all claims asserted in the investigation as invalid over the prior art.
Noting the five factors typically considered when determining whether an investigation should be stayed, ALJ Shaw found the following: (1) although this investigation is in its early stages, formal discovery has begun, and thus the state of discovery does not weigh heavily in favor of granting a stay; (2) the ID in the 795 investigation will be subject to Commission review and then appeal to the Federal Circuit, and the reexamination proceedings before the USPTO are in early stages, so a stay would not simplify the issues in any significant way; (3) any delay in the proceedings would prejudice ObjectVideo, weighing against granting a stay; (4) the findings of the ALJ in the 795 investigation (due in approximately two months) would not be final, and it is unlikely that the USPTO would conclude reexamination proceedings before the stay expires, so the stage of the parallel proceedings also weighs against granting a stay; and (5) no final agency determination is expected in either the 795 investigation or the reexamination proceedings before issuance of the ID in this investigation, meaning that all claims and defenses available to the parties today are expected to be available following the expiration of PELCO’s requested stay, so a stay would not promote the efficient use of Commission resources. Accordingly, the motion was denied.