Mary Elle Fashions, Inc. v. Technology Research Corporation
Filing
53
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STAYING CASE. Further, the Court ORDERS Technology to file a report on the status of the Wham-O appeal during the month of September every year and within 30 days after the Federal Circuit issues its mandate. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 6/16/11. (bkl)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MARY ELLE FASHIONS, INC.,
doing business as Meridian Electric,
Plaintiff,
v.
TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH
CORPORATION,
Case No. 10-cv-659-JPG-DGW
Defendant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Interested Party.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on its own initiative for purposes of case
management. Specifically, the Court wishes to stay these proceedings in light of recent and
impending judicial developments. Indeed, “it is within the court’s discretion to issue an
order to stay proceedings sua sponte.” Rogers v. Ameriprise Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 07 C 6876,
2008 WL 4826262, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 4, 2008).
Recently, there have been several interesting judicial developments in the arena of qui
tam actions for false patent marking. On July 7, 2011, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals,
whose decisions are binding on this Court, is set to hear oral arguments in United States ex
rel. FLFMC, LLC v. Wham-O, Inc., No. 2011-1067 (Fed. Cir. filed Nov. 16, 2010). The
Wham-O District Court dismissed a false patent marking action for lack of standing and, by
implication, subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff did not suffer injury-in-fact.
United States ex rel. FLFMC, LLC v. Wham-O, Inc., No. 10-cv-435, 2010 WL 3156162, at
*7-9 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2010). The Federal Circuit’s looming opinion in Wham-O may
require the immediate dismissal of this action and, in any event, will provide tremendous
guidance as to False Claims Act suits, which have flooded the country’s district courts in
recent months. And, the Court can think of no notable prejudice or hardship that Plaintiffs
will suffer due to a temporary stay of this action. For these reasons, a stay is certainly
warranted. Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, Nos. 06-cv-939-DRH, 06-cv-1001-DRH, 2007
WL 1532116, at *2 (S.D. Ill. May 24, 2007) (“The decision to issue a [sua sponte] stay rests
within the Court’s discretion, subject to the requirement that such discretion be exercised in a
manner that is consistent with equity and judicial economy.”).
In addition, the Court notes that appellate briefing will be completed in September in
Unique Product Solutions, Ltd. v. Hy-Grade Valve, Inc., No. 2011-1254 (Fed. Cir. filed Mar.
2011). The Unique Product District Court ruled that the qui tam provision of the false patent
marking statute is unconstitutional. Unique Prod. Solutions, Ltd. v. Hy-Grade Valve, Inc.,
No. 10-cv-1912, 2011 WL 924341, at *2-4 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 14, 2011). Of course, if the
Federal Circuit affirms this holding, it may well prove dispositive of the merits of this case.
And, even if it does not so rule, the Federal Circuit’s decision will act as binding precedent
on this Court.
Being fully advised of the premises, the Court finds that considerations of judicial
economy and potential prejudice to Defendant Technology Research Corporation
(“Technology”) dictate that this matter should be stayed. Accordingly, the Court hereby
STAYS all proceedings in this litigation until the Federal Circuit issues its opinion and
2
mandate in Wham-O. Further, the Court ORDERS Technology to file a report on the status
of the Wham-O appeal during the month of September every year and within 30 days after
the Federal Circuit issues its mandate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 16, 2011
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?