Brostron v. The Advance Metalworking Company

Filing 15

ORDER denying 12 Motion to Stay. Entered by Magistrate Judge John A. Gorman on 5/24/11. (WW, ilcd)

E-FILED

Tuesday, 24 May, 2011 10:15:25 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Daniel Brostron,
Plaintiff
v.
Advance Metalworking Co.,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-4014

ORDER
Now before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Stay (#12). The motion asserts that the
2011 Patent Reform Act, which has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and lies in the House
of Representatives for review. Were this Act to pass, Defendant asserts that it would preclude this
cause of action.
This Court certainly has the discretion to control disposition of cases on its docket. That
discretion includes the power to stay a case. The most notable types of stays are actually abstention,
under Colorado River or Younger, for example. But the defendant is not asking this Court to abstain,
just to stay this case on the chance that during its pendency Congress might change the governing
statute.
Reform of patent law is far from a fait accompli. As noted by one court, there is “no
indication that legislation is imminent. Moreover, the unpredictability of the legislative process
counsel against the imposition of a stay.” San Francisco Tech., Inc.v. Dial Corp. - F. Supp. 2d -,
2011 WL 941152 at *4, March 17, 2011 (N.D. Cal.). Whether this Act becomes law is not easily
predicted, and the time involved could be weeks, months or even years. See also Utah Women’s
Clinic Inc. v. Graham, 892 F. Supp. 1379, 1381 (D. Utah 1995)(declining to stay case based on
pending possible legislation); Warren v. Oil, Chmcical and Atomic Workers Pension Fund, 729 F.

Supp. 563 (E.D. Mich.1989)(declining to stay pending outcome of legislative effort to overturn
governing case law).
Moreover, the case law cited in support of Defendant’s motion is not binding on this court,
and I find it less than persuasive. For example, Defendant cites Simonian v. Edgecraft Corp., - F.
Supp. 2d -, 2010 WL 3781262, Sept. 20, 2010 (N.D.Ill.). In this unreported case1, there is no
quotation such as the one contained in the motion. The Court focused on the fact that there was a
split among circuits about false marking cases. No mention was made about pending legislation.
Defendant’s assertion that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by a stay is misleading. Plaintiff
has requested, in addition to the monetary relief on which Defendant focuses, injunctive relief and
declaratory relief. The cause of action is based on “false marketing”, which is prohibited primarily
because of its negative impact on the public’s interest. See, Juniper Networks Inc. v. Shipley, - F.3d
-, 2011 WL 1601995, Apr. 29, 2011 (Fed. Cir.). A delay in this litigation impacts much more than
the parties’ respective purses.
The proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing the need for a stay. Clinton v. Jones,
520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). Defendant has failed to meet that burden. The motion [#12] is DENIED.
ENTERED ON May 24, 2011
s/ John A. Gorman
JOHN A. GORMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

The Court was not able to find any other opinion in this case, reported or otherwise.