Irvine Development Co. v. Clark

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that this factor weighed in favor of a stay even where the parties had 19 already submitted their claim construction briefs and the court had held a claim 20 construction hearing
• finding little prejudice where “many of the 15 products [the plaintiff] asserts infringe were put on the market even before” the first patent 16 infringement lawsuit was filed
• granting stay even though “parties ha[d] engaged in some written discovery and document production” because “no depositions ha[d] been taken and no deadlines associated with expert discovery, summary judgment, pre-trial motions, and trial ha[d] been set”
• no prejudice where the plaintiff did not explain how a stay would impact its “licensing activities” or why monetary relief would not “fully restore[] [it] to the status quo ante”
• “Were the Court to 7 deny the stay until a decision on institution is made, the parties and the Court would expend 8 significant resources on issues that could eventually be mooted by the IPR decision.”
• “Were the Court to 25 deny the stay until a decision on institution is made, the parties and the Court would expend 26 significant resources on issues that could eventually be mooted by the IPR decision.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).