Memjet Rejects HP’s Motion to Delay

Memjet has asked the US District Court to deny HP’s motion to halt proceedings pending an Inter Partes Review (IPR).

At the end of March, HP filed a motion requesting a “Stay of Memjet’s infringement claims, pending Inter Partes 
Review by the United States Patent & Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal.” HP was hoping the “stay,” or halt to further legal process, would provide the time needed to explore a challenge to the validity of Memjet’s patents, under the sections of the U.S. Code on conditions for patentability including novelty and non-obviousness and based on the existence of prior art.

In a copy of the Notice Opposition dated April 4, 2016, provided to RT media, Memjet respectfully requests the US District Court (Southern District of California) to deny HP’s motion to delay, stating that:

• HP’s request is premature as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has not even decided whether it will institute the requested IPR, let alone reject any patent claims;
• Memjet would be unduly prejudiced by a stay, as it will deprive Memjet of its right to assert claims of infringement against HP. Currently, there is no pending IPR proceeding, and the last petition will not be acted upon by the PTAB for six months. It will enable HP to continue siphoning market share and taking customers in the market for page-wide wide format printers.
• A stay would result in inefficiency, not simplification. Firstly, HP would not be stopped from re-litigating invalidity; secondly, validity is not the only issue to be adjudicated; and thirdly, a stay would likely require holding two trials on two separate timelines.
• The stage of the litigation does not favor a stay. Claiming that the stage of the case is early, is not sufficient grounds to support a stay. And Memjet asserts HP is holding a loose definition of “early,” without considering the relative status of the litigation and IPR proceedings. Instead, courts look to the amount of time, effort, resources and money that the parties and the courts have already invested in the case. In this case, the parties and the Court has already dedicated a lot of time, effort, resources and money, since Memjet filed the lawsuit back in August 2015.

You’re Welcome to Contact Us！
You can provide opinions and comments on this story!
Or you can send us your own story!
Please contact Violien Wu, Head of News & Editorial, via violien.wu@iRecyclingTimes.com