P2I LTD. v. FAVORED TECH USA CORPORATION, et al.

Background

P2I LTD. filed this patent and related business dispute in April 2023. After amendments to the complaint, the court dismissed with prejudice P2I’s inducement, contributory-infringement, and willful-infringement claims involving the asserted patents. The court later dismissed with prejudice P2I’s claims based on the ’087 patent after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidated most of the claims P2I would later assert. The court also granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, ruling that the ’070 patent was ineligible and invalid under Title 35, United States Code, § 101. The court then entered judgment for Defendants.

P2I appealed the judgment to the Federal Circuit, and that appeal remained pending when the court decided this motion. Defendants filed a motion for attorney’s fees under Title 35, United States Code, § 285. After P2I agreed to extend its deadline for opposing that motion, P2I instead asked the court to stay, or pause, the fee-motion briefing until the appeal ended. P2I had not yet filed its opposition.

Analysis

The court explained that it had discretion to defer deciding a fee motion while an appeal was pending, but that courts generally consider attorney’s fees promptly after deciding the merits. It applied four stay factors: whether P2I showed a strong likelihood of success on appeal, whether P2I would suffer irreparable harm without a stay, whether a stay would substantially injure others, and where the public interest lay.

The court found that the first factor did not support a stay because P2I had only suggested that the patent-eligibility issue would be raised on appeal and had not shown a strong likelihood of prevailing. The second factor also did not support a stay because P2I offered no argument or evidence showing irreparable harm. The parties had not identified other parties that would be injured by a stay, so the third factor did not provide a basis for decision in favor of or against the stay.

For the public-interest factor, the court rejected P2I’s argument that conserving judicial resources favored waiting. It concluded that judicial economy was better served by deciding the fee issue while the proceedings were still fresh and while the Federal Circuit could consider any appeal concerning the fee calculation at the same time as the merits appeal. The court also stated that the public interest favors holding parties to their agreements, noting that the court and Defendants had relied on P2I’s agreement concerning the opposition deadline. The court declined to consider evidence or argument first presented with P2I’s reply.

Disposition

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin denied P2I’s request to stay briefing on Defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees. The order states that P2I’s opposition, if any, was due by Thursday, December 18, and that Defendants’ reply, if any, was due by January 12, 2025.