This case was stayed “[d]ue to the Court’s schedule.” Order (Nov. 10, 2011),ECF No. 237. At the November 10, 2011 hearing at which the Court announced its intention tostay this case, the Court cited the considerable amount of work that remained to be done toconstrue the claim terms as a basis for the stay.
Nov. 10, 2011 Tr. at 3-4. That has notchanged. The Court is in the same position with respect to a
ruling as it was when thestay was imposed
. Unless and until the
ruling is issued, it makes littlesense and would be inefficient to proceed with discovery in this case. Indeed, that is why thisCourt’s docket control order originally linked future deadlines in this case, including theexchange of revised infringement and invalidity contentions and all stages of expert discovery(which has not begun), to the issuance of a
Joint Agreed Docket ControlOrder (May 18, 2010), ECF No. 88. Even remaining fact discovery would be more productivepost-
, as the parties will be able to focus on a narrower set of disputes.TiVo has no basis to complain that maintaining the stay until a
ruling wouldcause undue delay. At the
hearing on June 2, 2011, this Court encouraged TiVo toreduce the number of terms it was seeking to have construed,
Markman Hr’g, Tr. at 31-33(June 2 2011); when TiVo refused, the Court made note of the delay that would likely result,
at 120. Over the next five months, TiVo took no steps to reduce the number of terms forconstruction. And in the more than two months since the November 10, 2011 hearing, TiVo stillhas not reduced the number of terms it seeks to construe.
The stay should be maintained for an additional, independent reason: Half of thepatents-in-suit are currently undergoing reexamination at the PTO. On June 2 & 3, 2011, TiVofiled reexamination requests for four of the five asserted Verizon patents. On July 22, 2011,Verizon moved for reexamination of two of the three asserted TiVo patents. The PTO has issued
Case 2:09-cv-00257-DF-CMC Document 246 Filed 01/24/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 8741