3rd Eye Surveillance, LLC v. Stealth Monitoring, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-00162 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2015)

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

Before the Court is Defendant Stealth Monitoring, Inc.’s (“Stealth”) Motion for Stay Pending Inter Partes Review (“MOTION”) (Doc. No. 12). 3rd Eye Surveillance, LLC (“3rd Eye”) responded (“ RESPONSE”) (Doc. No. 14), and Steath replied (“ REPLY”) (Doc. No. 15). Having considered the parties’ arguments and for the reasons set forth below, Stealth’s Motion for Stay is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. BACKGROUND On March 7, 2014, 3rd Eye filed an action against Stealth alleging , inter alia , infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,323,980 (the “’980 patent”).