`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`CHARLOTTE DIVISION
`
`LIFESCAN, INC., and
`LIFESCAN SCOTLAND LIMITED
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`UNISTRIP TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`
`
`Defendant.
`_____________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No.: 3:14-CV-00274-RJC-DSC
`
`MOTION TO STAY
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`Defendant UniStrip Technologies, LLC (“Defendant”) hereby moves this Court to stay the
`
`above-captioned case in its entirety in the interest of judicial efficiency and pending the outcome
`
`of an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and a Markman claim
`
`construction hearing in another jurisdiction. Plaintiffs LifeScan, Inc. and LifeScan Scotland
`
`Limited (“Plaintiffs”) allege that Defendant infringes two patents, U.S. Patent No. 7,250,105
`
`(“the ‘105 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,241,862 (“the ‘862 patent”), related to blood glucose
`
`meters and blood glucose strips, respectively. The ‘105 patent has been held invalid in an Inter
`
`Partes Review proceeding in the United States Patent and Trademark Office1. Plaintiffs have
`
`stated they plan to appeal this order2, and have voluntarily consented to stay this case with
`
`respect to the ‘105 patent until resolution of the appeal. They have not, however, voluntarily
`
`consented to stay the case with respect to the closely related ‘862 patent, which is now the
`
`subject of the Markman claim construction hearing. Given the significant overlap and
`
`1 Case IPR2013-00247 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Invalidity Order entered August 6, 2014 against
`the ‘105 Patent.
`2 Absent an appeal of the Order to the Federal Circuit, Plaintiffs would be required to dismiss all claims related to
`the ‘105 Patent. 35 U.S.C. §318.
`
`
`
`1
`Case 3:14-cv-00274-RJC-DSC Document 19 Filed 09/17/14 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`intertwined nature of claims, defenses, counterclaims, facts, discovery, and issues for trial
`
`surrounding these two patents, and the pendency of the Markman claim construction hearing,
`
`judicial efficiency dictates that this case be stayed until the status of both patents is clarified.
`
`
`
`In support of this Motion, Defendant offers the Accompanying Brief in Support of the Motion to
`
`Stay.
`
`
`
`Wherefore, Defendants respectfully request that the present action be stayed, in its entirety, until
`
`the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rules on the ‘105 Patent.
`
`
`
`Dated: September 17, 2014
`
`
`
`CLEMENTS BERNARD PLLC
`
`By: /s/ Christopher L. Bernard
`Christopher L. Bernard
`N.C. State Bar No. 27713
`Lawrence A. Baratta, Jr.
`N.C. State Bar No. 37589
`1901 Roxborough Road, Suite 250
`Charlotte, NC 28211 USA
`Tel:
`704-790-3600
`Fax: 704-366-9744
`cbernard@worldpatents.com
`lbaratta@worldpatents.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`AND COUNTERCLAIMANT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`Case 3:14-cv-00274-RJC-DSC Document 19 Filed 09/17/14 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` hereby certify that on the date listed below, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
`
` I
`
`Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following:
`
`
`
`EUGENE M. GELERNTER
`ANTHONY C. DECINQUE
`Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
`1133 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 336-2000
`Fax: (212) 336-2222
`emgelernter@pbwt.com
`adecinque@pbwt.com
`
`
`
`Dated: September 17, 2014
`
`DAVID N. ALLEN
`DOUGLAS GRIMES
`Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo, LLP
`PO Box 30397
`Charlotte, NC 28230
`PH: (704) 366-1101
`FAX: (704) 366-6181
`dallen@hedrickgardner.com
`dgrimes@hedrickgardner.com
`
`
`
`CLEMENTS BERNARD PLLC
`
`By: /s/ Christopher L. Bernard
`Christopher L. Bernard
`N.C. State Bar No. 27713
`Lawrence A. Baratta, Jr.
`N.C. State Bar No. 37589
`1901 Roxborough Road, Suite 250
`Charlotte, NC 28211 USA
`Tel:
`704-790-3600
`Fax: 704-366-9744
`cbernard@worldpatents.com
`lbaratta@worldpatents.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`Case 3:14-cv-00274-RJC-DSC Document 19 Filed 09/17/14 Page 3 of 3
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
