laches, bar on recovering costs, and inequitable conduct. (D.!.
32)Twitter, Federal Signal, and Rave Wireless also press counterclaims seeking declarations
noninfringement, invalidity, unenforceability, and that the case
D.!. 27; D.I.32)
On August 18, 2010, Cooper requested a scheduling conference. (D.I. 36)
On September 10,2010, Cooper
a proposed scheduling order.
on September 10, 2010, Defendants
their motion to stay.
2010, the Court held a scheduling conference. (D.I. 45)Subsequently, on October
2010, the Court entered a scheduling order. (D.I. 50) Pursuant tothe scheduling order, discovery -which is presently at its earliest stages -is to be completed
October 14,2011, and trial
set for July 9-20,2012.
Briefing on the motion to stay was completed on October 27, 2010. (D.!. 42; D.I.47; D.I. 52; D.I. 69) At Defendants' request (D.!. 62), the Court heard argument on Defendants'motion on December
Defendants filed a request for
the '428 patent withthe PTO on August 26, 2010, based on four prior art references.
44 Ex. 2) The requestwas directed to
the '428 patent.
The PTO responded on November
granting the request and issuing
Office Action rejecting each claim
the '428patent under
102 and 103.
stay litigation pending a PTO reexamination
a matter left tothe Court's discretion.
See Ethicon, Inc.
849 F.2d 1422,1426-27 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Inexercising this discretion, the Court must weigh the competing interests
the parties and attempt