Eagle View Technologies v. Nearmap US, 2:21-cv-00283

Plaintiffs EagleView Technologies, Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. assert patent-infringement claims in two related cases: No. 2:21-cv-283 (against Nearmap) and No. 2:22-cv-215 (against GAF).
The 283 Case asserts 13 patents (99 claims); the 215 Case asserts a subset (9 patents).
All asserted patents/claims are involved in ongoing PTO proceedings or appeals to the Federal Circuit; the PTO already found all asserted claims unpatentable in several patents and instituted reexamination for multiple others.
Plaintiffs oppose a stay; Defendants (Nearmap and GAF) support staying the district-court proceedings pending the PTO/Federal Circuit outcomes.
Fact discovery is complete; claim construction and summary-judgment motions are pending; expert discovery and trial remain.
The Court granted a stay and administratively closed the cases, directing parties to notify the Court within five days of completion of the PTO/Federal Circuit proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Undue prejudice from delay	EagleView: stay would cause significant prejudice because parties are direct competitors and stay could be lengthy	Defendants: delay inherent to PTO process does not alone show undue prejudice; no injunction sought and damages can compensate any infringement	Court: No undue prejudice shown; delay alone insufficient and lack of injunctive relief undermines prejudice claim
Simplification of issues	EagleView: did not oppose simplification argument but pressed prejudice concerns	Defendants: PTO proceedings likely to cancel/limit claims and provide guidance, simplifying litigation	Court: Stay likely to significantly simplify issues and trial given number/complexity of patents and PTO invalidations
Status of discovery and trial readiness	EagleView: significant litigation effort already invested; want timely resolution	Defendants: substantial work remains (expert discovery, trial) so stay will avoid wasted resources	Court: Though fact discovery done, key tasks (expert discovery, dispositive motions, trial) remain; this factor favors stay
Overall request to stay	EagleView: opposes stay primarily due to prejudice and competitive harm	Nearmap/GAF: request stay due to overlapping PTO/Fed. Cir. proceedings	Court: Granted stay and administratively closed cases pending PTO and Federal Circuit resolution

Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422 (1988) (recognizing district courts' power to stay cases pending PTO reexamination)
eSoft, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 505 F. Supp. 2d 784 (D. Colo. 2007) (legislative history supports liberal stays pending reexamination)
Murata Mach. USA v. Daifuku Co., 830 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stay factors: prejudice, simplification, status of discovery/trial)
In re Medical Components, Inc., [citation="535 F. App'x 916"] (Fed. Cir. 2013) (delay alone does not establish undue prejudice)
Smartflash LLC v. Apple, Inc., [citation="621 F. App'x 995"] (Fed. Cir. 2015) (affirming stay even shortly before trial when PTO proceedings encompassed all asserted claims)