BAM! IMO

If you can't read between these lines, then, well, go back to engineering:

partial, from today's order:sorry the Plank had to highlight!

After considering the factors bearing on whether to stay a case pending IPR, the Court, in its discretion, determines that a stay is not appropriate in the circumstances here. Trial is set for October 27, 2015, the claim construction hearing is set for February 19, 2015, and e.Digital filed its complaints against Defendants in early December 2013. (Doc. No. 37; 13-cv-2889, Doc. No. 32.) Further, the parties have completed claim construction briefing. (See Doc. Nos. 42, 43, 45, 46.) Additionally, on December 12, 2014, the Court issued a claim construction order regarding claim 1 of the ’108 patent in substantially similar cases brought by e.Digital against other defendants. (13-cv-2897, Doc. No. 49.) Moreover, the PTO has not yet decided whether it will review the ’108 patent. (Doc. No. 38-1 at 10.); see P&G v. Team Technologies, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128949, at *9 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 10, 2013) (denying stay pending IPR because, among other reasons, the PTO had not yet decided to initiate IPR). Here, the discovery period will end before the PTO decides whether to institute IPR of the ’108 patent. (Doc. No. 38-1 at 17 (stating that the PTO will issue its decision in June 2015); 13-cv-2889, Doc. No. 26 (setting discovery cutoff of May 11, 2015)). Accordingly, the factors weigh against granting a stay pending IPR. The Court denies Defendants’ motion to stay.