Imax Corp. v. In-Three, Inc.

Good Law

385 F. Supp. 2d 1030·2005 WL 2155247·76 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1957·2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24203

United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJuly 29, 2005CV05-1795FMC(MCX)California1,391 words

Opinion

Cooper, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING COMPLETION OF THE REEXAMINATION OF THE U.S. PATENT NO. 4,925,294

This matter is before the Court on Defendant In-Three, Inc.’s Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Completion of Reexamination of U.S. Patent. No. 4,925,294 (docket no. 54), filed June 10, 2005. The Court, having read and considered the moving, opposition and reply documents submitted in connection with this motion, hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons and in the manner set forth below.

I. Background

This patent infringement action concerns a method and apparatus for converting two-dimensional films into three-dimensional media. On March 11, 2005, Plaintiffs IMAX Corporation (“IMAX”) and Three-Dimensional Media Group, Ltd. (“3DMG”) brought suit against Defendant In-Three, Inc. (“In-Three”) for allegedly infringing U.S. Patent No. 4,925,294 (“294 Patent”). On July 21, 2005, In-Three amended its answer to assert counterclaims that IMAX is infringing three of its patents. In addition to these counterclaims, In-Three asserts affirmative defenses of (1) non-infringement; (2) invalidity of the 294 Patent on nine grounds, including prior art, failure to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.