Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Edge-Works Manufacturing Co. v. HSG, LLC

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Southern Division

April 30, 2018

EDGE-WORKS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
HSG, LLC, Defendant.

          ORDER

          LOUISE W. FLANAGAN United States District Judge

         This matter is before the court on defendant's motion to stay proceedings pending the outcome of a reexamination of the patent-in-suit recently initiated by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, (DE 42), and motion to continue discovery deadlines pending the court's resolution of the motion to stay, (DE 43). The issues raised have been briefed fully and in this posture are ripe for adjudication. For the reasons that follow, defendant's motion to stay is granted and the motion to continue the discovery deadlines is denied as moot.

         STATEMENT OF THE CASE

         Plaintiff initiated this case by complaint filed November 22, 2017, alleging that defendant's variable compression ammunition magazine pouches, known as the Polymer Taco pouches (“accused products”), infringe upon U.S. Patent No. 9, 795, 210 (“the '210 patent”). Plaintiff was granted this patent in conjunction with the development of its own variable compression ammunition magazine pouches, known as the Hardshell Scorpion pouches.

         Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction on December 1, 2017, seeking an order prohibiting defendant from further sales of its accused products. On January 11, 2018, the court denied plaintiff's motion, holding plaintiff had forecasted sufficient evidence to show it will likely prove that defendant's accused products infringe the '210 patent and that defendant had failed to raise a substantial question of invalidity. However, the court denied plaintiff's motion because plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.

         On April 9, 2018, defendant filed the instant motion to stay, arguing that this action should be stayed pending the outcome of the reexamination proceedings of the '210 patent before the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”).

         COURT'S DISCUSSION

         A. Standard of Review

         A court's “power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “The determination of whether to grant a stay pending the outcome of the PTO's reexamination is soundly within the court's discretion.” Biogaia AB v. Nature's Way Prod., Inc., No. 5:10-CV-449-FL, 2011 WL 3664350, at *1 (E.D. N.C. Aug. 18, 2011) (citing Cellectis S.A. v. Precision Biosciences, Inc., No. 5:08-CV-00119-H, 2010 WL 3430854, at *2 (E.D. N.C. Aug. 31, 2010)). Courts consider the following factors to aide in their determinations of whether to grant a stay: “(1) the stage of the litigation, including whether discovery is or will be almost completed and whether the matter has been scheduled for trial; (2) whether a stay will unduly prejudice or tactically disadvantage the nonmoving party; and, (3) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and streamline the trial, thereby reducing the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court.” Id. “There is a liberal policy in favor of granting motions to stay proceedings pending the outcome of PTO reexamination or reissuance proceedings.” Id.

         As this court has recognized, there are benefits to staying litigation pending a reexamination proceeding if the above factors support a stay:

1) all prior art presented to the Court will have been first considered by the PTO with its particular expertise; 2) many discovery problems relating to the prior art can be alleviated by the PTO examination; 3) in those cases resulting in effective invalidity of the patent, the suit will likely be dismissed; 4) the outcome of the reexamination may encourage a settlement without the further use of the Court; 5) the record of reexamination would likely be entered at trial, thereby reducing the complexity and length of the litigation; 6) issues, defenses and evidence will be effectively limited in pre-trial conferences after a reexamination; and 7) the cost of litigation will likely be reduced.

Id. at *2.

         1. Dilatory Tactics

         Before addressing the three factors listed above, the court addresses separately plaintiff's general argument that this case should not be stayed because defendant chose to pursue ex parte reexamination with the PTO rather than inter partes review (“IPR”), ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.