`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Alexandria Division
`
`RAI Strategic Holdings, et al..
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V.
`
`Altria Client Services, LLC, et ai.
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. l:20-cv-393
`Hon. Liam O'Grady
`
`ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Defendants' motion to lift the stay as to Defendants' five asserted
`
`patents. See Dkt. 447. After careful consideration of the Parties' positions, the Court GRANTS
`
`Defendants' motion.
`
`The Court will not restate a comprehensive factual and procedural history of this dispute,
`
`which the Parties present in their responsive briefing. See Dkt. 449, at 4-5; Dkt. 450, at 5-8. In
`
`short, the Court entered a complete stay of the matter on December 7,2020 pending the
`
`development of parallel PTAB proceedings instituted by Defendants. See Dkt. 432; see also
`
`Dkts. 426,444. Throughout this case, and in connection with the stay entered in December, the
`
`Court has endeavored to avoid duplicative and piecemeal adjudication of claims. See, e.g., Dkt.
`
`98. Still, the Court recognizes that the interests ofJudicial economy cannot blindly override the
`
`obligation to adjudicate live cases and controversies, especially when significant countervailing
`
`prejudice will afflict a party with otherwise actionable claims. To that end, the Court does not
`
`view Defendants' request to partially lift the stay as a "thinly-veiled motion for reconsideration."
`
`See Dkt. 450, at 5. Instead, it perceives Defendants' request as urging the Court to revisit its
`
`prior Order based on recent developments in the PTAB. See Dkt. 451, at 6.
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 456 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 10176
`Case 1:20-cv-00393-LO-TCB Document 456 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 2 PagelD# 10176
`
`Had the PTAB declined to institute post-grant review of Plaintiffs‘ ’268 and ”542 patents,
`
`the Parties’ respective claims and counterclaims would have remained on the same litigation
`
`track. This prospect was the basis for the Court’s initial decision to stay the entire action.
`
`l-lowever, now that the PTAB has decided to institute post-grant review of the ”542
`
`patent, Dkt. 446. at 1, the Court finds that an indefinite. multi-year hold on the counterclaims
`
`pending resolution of the ongoing PTAB proceedings would result in significant prejudice to the
`
`Defendants, who were hauled into this Court by Plaintiffs in the first instance. The Court
`
`understands Plaintiffs” position that Defendants have vigorously asserted the commonalities
`
`between the Parties’ respective claims and counterclaims in their previous motions practice.
`
`Dkt. 450, at 11. However, the Court notes that its decision to partially lift the stay owes not to a
`
`lack of “common technical, commercial, and damages issues" in the competing causes of action,
`
`but rather to the undesirability and prejudicial effect of a “trial-ready” dispute sitting “dormant
`
`for three years or more.” See Dkt. 451, at 10. If PTAB invalidation statistics hold, such a delay
`
`will likely prove needless. 1d. at 7 & n.3. The Court also identifies scant evidence to suggest
`
`that a total stay will simplify issues for trial, or that Plaintiffs will suffer legal prejudice by being
`
`compelled to continue down a litigation path on which they initially embarked. See Centrr'pera!
`
`NeMorks’, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inca, 2019 WL 8888195, at *2—3 (ED. Va. Sept. 18, 2019).
`
`Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant‘s motion (Dkt. 44?) and exercises its
`
`inherent power to LIFT THE STAY on Defendants’ counterclaims.
`
`It is SO ORDERED.
`
`FebmarylLa,2021
`
`Alexandria, Virginia
`
`[\J
`
`
`
`istrict Judge
`
`Liam 0%dgg
`
`United States
`
`
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
