mCom IP, LLC v. BackBase U.S.A. Inc.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:22-cv-02046
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In mCom IP v. BackBase, BackBase asked to pause the case, but Judge McMahon’s ruling is not included.
mCom IP, LLC and Backbase U.S.A., Inc.; the provided document is Backbase’s request for a stay and does not show a court ruling affecting either party.
What happened
mCom IP, LLC v. BackBase U.S.A. Inc. concerns BackBase’s request to pause a patent-infringement case while a patent review proceeded before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The document provided is a letter from BackBase’s lawyer, not a court ruling.
BackBase argued that the review could simplify validity and claim-meaning issues, that the case was at an early stage, and that pausing it would not harm mCom. BackBase also asked the court to consider its request only if the court did not grant BackBase’s separate motion to dismiss.
The provided materials do not show what Judge Colleen McMahon decided about either request. They therefore do not establish that the case was stayed, dismissed, or otherwise resolved.
The detailed version
- mCom IP, LLC v. BackBase U.S.A. Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-02046
- Colleen McMahon
- June 22, 2022
Document and procedural posture
The provided text is a June 20, 2022 letter from N. Andrew Crain, counsel for Backbase U.S.A., Inc., to Judge Colleen McMahon. It requests, in the alternative, that the court stay—temporarily pause—the case while an already-instituted inter partes review, a patent-validity proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, is completed. The text does not include a judicial opinion or order deciding that request.
Background
mCom IP, LLC sued Backbase over U.S. Patent No. 8,862,508. The letter states that the complaint specifically identified claim 13 as allegedly infringed. It also states that Unified Patents, LLC, a non-party, had petitioned for review of several claims of the patent, including claim 13, and that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted review of the challenged claims.
The letter says the case was at an early stage: the parties had briefed Backbase’s motion to dismiss for improper venue and failure to state a claim, discovery had not begun, and no scheduling order had been entered.
Backbase’s arguments
Backbase argued that a stay would simplify the case because the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s review could resolve or narrow patent-validity and claim-construction issues. Backbase also argued that the case’s early stage favored a stay and that mCom would not be prejudiced because the parties were not competitors, mCom had not sought a preliminary injunction, and monetary compensation would be adequate for any alleged infringement.
The letter states that mCom opposed a stay because claims 2, 8, 14, and 17 were not included in the patent review. Backbase responded that the complaint’s infringement chart addressed only claim 13 and that the non-reviewed dependent claims depended on independent claims included in the review.
Disposition
No disposition appears in the provided text. The materials do not state whether Judge McMahon granted, denied, or otherwise ruled on Backbase’s motion to stay or motion to dismiss. The document also contains dates that appear internally inconsistent regarding when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted review and when it was scheduled to issue a decision; this summary does not resolve those inconsistencies.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.