3D Systems, Incorporated v. Envisiontec, Incorporated et al

Filing 335

ORDER denying 329 Motion to Stay Damages. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (JOwe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
3D SYSTEMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 05-74891
Hon: AVERN COHN

-vsENVISIONTEC, INC.,
ENVISIONTEC GMBH and
SIBCO, INC.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY DAMAGES
This is a patent case. Before the Court is defendants’ Motion And Brief To Stay
Damages (Doc. 329). The motion is DENIED without prejudice.
The background of the motion is described in the Memorandum And Order Granting
Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law And Denying Defendants’
Renewed Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law (Doc. 294), and the Memorandum Of
Reasons For Entry Of Final Judgment (Third Amended Judgment); Expressly Determining
That The Judgment Is A Final Judgment; Expressly Determining That There Is No Just
Reason For Delay In Its Entry; And Certifying The Case For Immediate Appeal Under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) (Doc. 332).
Defendants represent to the Court that they will appeal the final judgment. They say
in their motion that the time and resources of the parties should not be unnecessarily
expended during the pendency of the appeal, given that there is a likelihood of reversal of
the finding of infringement.
1

Plaintiff says that if defendants appeal they will move for dismissal on the grounds
that the non-paradigm patents and non-asserted claims of the paradigm patents remain to
be adjudicated, and that it is prejudiced by delaying consideration of damages given the
finding of infringement.
As to the non-paradigm patents and non-asserted claims of the paradigm patents,
neither party has suggested they are non-duplicative, unique or significantly different than
the adjudicated patents and claims. Also, neither party suggests that damages discovery
will be unusually complicated, burdensome or time consuming.
Under the circumstances, it appears to the Court that discovery on damages should
go forward. Too often in a patent infringement case the dollar amount at stake seems to
play second fiddle to the substantive contest over infringement. This case has been
pending since 2005. It is not too soon for an appreciation of the dollars involved.
Should it appear that plaintiff’s approach to discovery is excessive, the Court, upon
motion, will reconsider this denial.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2011

S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of record
on this date, October 13, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Julie Owens
Case Manager, [phone]

2