Good question.

Two thoughts (which are in essence more questions):

Read the first part of that requirement.

"If there is concurrent litigation and reexamination on a

patent, and the request for reexamination was filed as a result of court order, or....."

and put it against the words in the PACER:

".....ex parte reexamination challenges brought by plaintiff HTC and others against the MMP patents in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office."

Question: Did HTC (et al, e.g, other entities engaged in this litigation) present their challenges to the USPTO in response to a court order? Who made the most recent request for re-exam? PubPat? Is PubPart the "agent" of HTC et al? (if the prior re-exam was requested by PubPat - that answers this question). If there was a court order in play, IMO the "expedite" requirement continues.

Second thought:

I thought I had read a broader requirement in this regard, i.e., if there is any litigation regarding claims of infringement of the patent in question. I believe this was coupled with requirements for the examiner to perform a litigation search and for the patent owner to deliver information/status of any litigation.

In admitted ignorance, I thought the primary purpose for these actions was so the examiner could properly prioritize re-exam activity (what other purpose would it serve, really? Court actions aren't binding on the re-exam.). It seems that if the requirement were for court direction to request re-exam or a stay in place, that would be the targetted information the examiner would be interested in (i.e., why solicit all paper when the only papers that matter would amount to a few pages?, and why cause an unnecessary file storage cost for no apparent reason?).

So, is this THE requirement/criteria, or is there broarder guidance?

Thanks,

SGE