Digest of Benefit Funding Sys. LLC v. Advance Am. Cash Advance Ctrs. Nos. 2014-1122, -1124, -1125 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2014) (precedential).  On appeal from D. Del.  Before Prost, Lourie, and Hughes.

Procedural Posture: Patentee appealed district court’s stay of patent infringement litigation pending covered business method (CBM) review of the asserted claims. CAFC affirmed.

  • Stay: Following the Patent and Trial Appeal Board’s (PTAB) institution of a CBM review, the accused infringers moved to stay the district court litigation. In evaluating the motion, the district court considered the four statutory factors governing stays, as set forth in AIA § 18(b)(1), and concluded that the factors, particularly the first and fourth factors—whether a stay will lead to a simplification of issues and reduce the burden of the litigation on the parties and the court—strongly favored a stay. CAFC agreed with the district court’s analysis of the factors and upheld the stay, additionally finding that opposing a stay motion is not the proper forum to argue that the PTAB’s decision to institute a CBM proceeding is incorrect.