Free Order on Motion to Stay - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-00712-JJF Document 12 Filed O4/24/2006 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CENTILLION DATA SYSTEMS, LLC, :
a Delaware Corporation, :
Plaintiff, E
v. j Civil Action No. O5—7l2—JJF
AVOLENT, INC., ;
a Delaware Corporation, :
Defendant. E
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Avolent Inc.’s Motion To Stay
Action Pending Reexamination Of The ‘270 Patent (D.I. 6). For
the reasons discussed, the Motion will be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 5, 2005, a third—party filed a reexamination request
with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO"),
which alleged that two pieces of prior art made three independent
claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,287,270 (“the ‘27O patent")
unpatentable. On June 26, 2005, the USPTO granted the
reexamination request, concluding that the “prior art raised a
substantial new question of patentability.” (D.I. 6 at l).
At the time the reexamination request was filed, Plaintiff
Centillion Data Systems (“Centillion”) was involved in litigation
with Convergys Corporation, Qwest Communications International,
and Qwest Corporation (collectively, “Qwest”) in the District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Following the

Case 1:05-cv-00712-JJF Document 12 Filed O4/24/2006 Page 2 of 3
USPTO's granting reexamination, Qwest renewed a motion to stay.
The court denied the motion to stay, suggesting Qwest filed the
request for reexamination and concluding that this was yet
another dilatory tactic by Qwest. Centillion Data Systems, LLC
v. Convergys Corp., 2005 WL 2045786, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 24,
2005).
On September 30, 2005, Centillion filed its Complaint
against Defendant Avolent, Inc. (“Avolent”) alleging infringement
of the ‘27O patent. Avolent requested that Centillion
voluntarily agree to a stay in the instant lawsuit pending the
outcome of the reexamination. Centillion refused this request
and Avolent filed the instant motion to stay.
II. DISCUSSION
The decision to grant or deny a stay is within the court’s
broad range of discretionary powers. Dentsply Int’l, Inc. v.
Kerr Mfg. Co., 734 F. Supp. 656, 658 (D. Del. l990)(citations
omitted). While the Court is aware that the case is in its
initial stages and that a reexamination could narrow the issues,
the Court concludes that a stay will not substantially assist
resolution of the issues. The Court concludes that there is a
substantial risk of prejudice to Centillion, given the findings
of the Indiana Court. After considering these findings, the
Court is persuaded that the lead of the Indiana Court should be
followed. Accordingly, the Court will deny Avolent Inc.'s Motion
2

Case 1:05-cv-00712-JJF Document 12 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 3 of 3
To Stay Action Pending Reexamination Of The ‘27O Patent (D.I. 6).
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
I. Avolent Inc.’s Motion To Stay Action Pending Reexamination
Of The ‘270 Patent (D.I. 6) is DENIED.
2. Avolent shall file its Answer no later than twenty (20) days
from the date of this Order.
April , 2006 FQ-A·4~¢—··
ED A DISTRICT
3