Lanier Parking has filed its reply brief in support of its motion for a stay, pending the outcome of the ongoing reexamination proceedings of the patent-in-suit.  Lanier argues that a stay is justified here because the reexamination proceedings are already well advanced, unlike in the cases cited by Juxtacomm.  Moreover, Lanier points out that its case has just begun, and argues that Juxtacomm will suffer no prejudice.  Lanier takes specific umbrage with Juxtacomm's argument that its licensing program would suffer if a stay were implemented:  "[P]otential harm to a licensing program is by no means justification to proceed with litigation. Implicit Networks, Inc. v. Adv. Micro Devices, Inc., No. C 08-184 JLR, 2009 WL 357902 at *3 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 9, 2009) (granting a stay of litigation and finding insufficient patentee’s argument that a stay would “significantly and irreparably” harm its licensing campaign)."

See our previous post on Lanier's motion for a stay here.

 

 

See our previous post on Lanier's motion for a stay here