Perry Street Software, Inc. v. Jedi Technologies, Inc.

Background

The court considered letters dated January 22, 2021, in which the parties proposed competing schedules for this patent-infringement action. The opinion identifies Perry Street Software, Inc. as the declaratory-judgment plaintiff and infringement defendant, and Jedi Technologies, Inc. as the defendant and counterclaim plaintiff.

Patent-validity motion

The court allowed Perry Street to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings challenging the validity of Jedi’s patent under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. A judgment-on-the-pleadings motion asks the court to decide an issue based on the pleadings already filed. The motion was due February 17, 2021; responsive papers were due March 17, 2021; and reply papers were due March 31, 2021.

The opinion did not decide whether Jedi’s patent was valid. It stated that, if the complaint were not dismissed in response to the motion, the parties would follow the schedule described in the order. That schedule included exchanges of infringement, non-infringement, and invalidity contentions; claim-construction terms and briefs; and later preparation for dispositive motions and/or trial. The court stated that the case would proceed on an expedited schedule, with no more than 180 days to prepare for dispositive motions and/or trial after claim construction set further dates.

Motion to stay

The court made a written record of its oral denial of Perry Street’s motion to stay the action pending an appeal from the court’s order refusing to compel arbitration. The opinion stated that a stay pending such an appeal was discretionary and was not automatic. The motion to stay was denied. The clerk was directed to remove the motion at Docket 73 from the court’s list of open motions.

Disposition and significance

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon denied the stay and entered the scheduling directions. The order did not resolve the patent-validity challenge, the infringement claims, or the arbitration appeal itself.