Case Number: 1:10-cv-04119 (Dkt. 232)
Having previously found Deluxe liable for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,187,633 B2 (“Motion picture and anti-piracy coding”), the court denied Deluxe’s request to stay damages proceedings pending Deluxe’s interlocutory appeal to the Federal Circuit.
In denying Deluxe’s motion, the court emphasized the substantial hardship that financing the litigation has caused MPV, “a small company,… struggl[ing] to survive in the face of what i[t] describes as rampant infringement of its patent, both here and in Europe.” The court found that Deluxe had not demonstrated a “substantial possibility” that its interlocutory appeal will succeed. The court characterized Deluxe’s argument as being based on the “assumption” of reversal by the Federal Circuit. Further, the court found that Deluxe had not demonstrated that all factors, such as prejudice to the plaintiff and undue burden to defendants, which are traditionally considered in granting a stay, weighed in its favor. With respect to prejudice to the plaintiff, the court rejected Deluxe’s characterization of MPV as a non-practicing entity, saying instead “MPV is not a patent troll, but instead is a small company run by the inventor of the technology that Deluxe misappropriated, whose commercialization efforts were frustrated by rampant infringement both in the United States and in Europe by Deluxe and former defendant Technicolor.”
The articles on our Website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice.