Welcome back to the last Post-Grant USPTO Proceedings Seminar live blog of the day! The last panel of the afternoon is entitled Judges’ Panel: A View from the Bench on Concurrent PTO Proceedings. Our featured judicial panelists are Hon. Garrett E. Brown, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court, District of New Jersey; Hon. Theodore R. Essex, Administrative Law Judge, United States International Trade Commission; and Hon. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia. Below are some the highlights:
* The judges noted the different standards used between the ITC and the District Courts. The ITC would want to hear the evidence presented to the other courts, rather than having a party or a practitioner simply declare the previous decisions they received; emphasize your evidence and not the result.
* The ITC doesn’t do money damages; they can do a cease and desist and exclusions. If the ITC doesn’t move quickly they can’t provide a remedy to the movant. ITC judge are predisposed to not grant stays because of the interest of the time sensitivy given their limited damages. It it in the ITC’s interest to remain relevant. Stays are granted if the ITC judge knows a Federal Circuit case is soon to follow.
* Patent protection is a property right vital enough to be placed in the Constitution, therefore patent litigation matters must be taken with the utmost importance by the courts.
* A movant’s status as a non-practicing entity doesn’t alter a judge’s consideration of whether or not they merit a stay of litigation.
Tags: Court of Appeals, District Court litigation, Federal Circuit, PLI, USPTO
You share in the PLI Practice Center community, so we just ask that you keep things civil. Leave out the personal attacks. Do not use profanity, ethnic or racial slurs, or take shots at anyone's sexual orientation or religion. If you can't be nice, we reserve the right to remove your material and ban users who violate our Terms of Service.