R.D. Jones, Stop Experts, Inc. et al v. Traffic Safety Corporation

Filing 28

ORDER: Defendant Traffic Safety Corporation's Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. # 27 ) is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to STAY and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case pending resolution of R.D. Jones, et al. v. RTC Mfg., Inc. , 8:16-cv-1686-T-35JSS. The parties are directed to file a status with the Court immediately upon the resolution of R.D. Jones, et al. v. RTC Mfg., Inc., 8:16-cv-1686-T-35JSS. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 8/24/2016. (DRW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
R.D. JONES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:16-cv-1689-T-33TGW

TRAFFIC SAFETY CORPORATION,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
Defendant Traffic Safety Corporation’s Unopposed Motion to
Stay Proceedings (Doc. # 27), filed on August 22, 2016. For
the reasons that follow, the Court grants the Motion.
Discussion
On

June

15,

2016,

before

instituting

this

action,

Plaintiffs R.D. Jones, Stop Experts, Inc., and RRFB Global,
Inc.

filed

a

complaint

against

RTC

Manufacturing,

Inc.,

alleging direct and indirect patent infringement of U.S.
Patent Numbers 8,081,087 and 9,129,540. R.D. Jones, et al. v.
RTC Mfg., Inc., 8:16-cv-1686-T-35JSS, (Doc. # 1). In the RTC
action, Plaintiffs alleged that RTC was the manufacturer of
an infringing product. Id.

1 

Then, on June 22, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the instant
Complaint against Traffic Safety. (Doc. # 1). Plaintiffs
allege direct and indirect patent infringement of U.S. Patent
Numbers

8,081,087

and

9,129,540

against

Traffic

Safety.

Traffic Safety now moves the Court to stay this action pending
the outcome of the RTC action, which request is unopposed by
Plaintiffs. (Doc. # 27). Traffic Safety argues it fits within
the consumer-suit exception because it is alleged to have
purchased and resold infringing products produced by RTC.
(Id. at 1). Traffic Safety further argues that staying this
action will facilitate judicial economy. (Id.).
Upon review, the Court agrees that staying this action
will facilitate judicial economy. To be sure, the Federal
Circuit has previously indicated a patent suit may be stayed
pending

the

manufacturer

resolution
of

of

infringing

a

related

goods.

See

action
Spread

against

a

Spectrum

Screening LLC v. Eastman Kodak Co., 657 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.
Cir.

2011)

(“litigation

against

or

brought

by

the

manufacturer of infringing goods takes precedence over a suit
by the patent owner against customers of the manufacturer”)
(citation omitted).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

2 

(1)

Defendant Traffic Safety Corporation’s Unopposed Motion
to Stay Proceedings (Doc. # 27) is GRANTED.

(2)

The Clerk is directed to STAY and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE
this case pending resolution of R.D. Jones, et al. v.
RTC Mfg., Inc., 8:16-cv-1686-T-35JSS.

(3)

The parties are directed to file a status with the Court
immediately upon the resolution of R.D. Jones, et al. v.
RTC Mfg., Inc., 8:16-cv-1686-T-35JSS.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this

24th day of August, 2016.

3