Infinity Headwear & Apparel v. Jay Franco & Sons et al, No. 1:2015cv01259 - Document 300 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The Court has made clear that the PTAB reexamination has no consequence on this case until after a reexamination certificate is issued and published. (Doc. Nos. 187 at 6, 260 at 2.) Infinity's motions for summary judgment are fully briefed and discovery is now closed. (See Doc. 190-92, 194, 199, 216-18, 233, 257-59,266-67, 292-93, 296) At this point in the litigation, a stay is unwarranted. After the resolution of the pending motions, the Honorable J. Paul Oetken will determine if the case is ready to proceed to trial. It is hereby ordered that Jay Franco's request to stay the patent infringement cause of action is DENIED. So Ordered. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis on 6/9/2017) (js)

Download PDF
Infinity Headwear & Apparel v. Jay Franco & Sons et al Doc. 300 Dockets.Justia.com

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.