Cruise Control Technologies LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.

Filing 23

ORDER granting 10 Motion to Stay. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
LLC,

Case No. 14-11524
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ARTHUR J. TARNOW

Plaintiff,
v.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA,
INC., ET AL.,

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
R. STEVEN WHALEN

Defendants.
______________________________/

ORDER STAYING CASE
This case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
on April 15, 2014. This is a patent infringement case. On May 31, 2013, the U.S.
Patent Office granted Defendant’s request for reexamination of the patent-in-suit. The
Examiner found that the claims asserted by Plaintiff are not patentable in view of prior
art presented by Defendants. Counsel has advised the Court that Plaintiff filed its
appeal of that decision on March 12, 2015.
Before the Court now is Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Stay Pending
Reexamination [10], Plaintiff’s Response [17], Defendants’ Reply [18], Defendants’
Supplemental Brief [20], and Defendant’s second Supplemental Brief [22]. For the

reasons that follow, Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Stay Pending Reexamination
[10] is GRANTED.
In the Sixth Circuit, courts consider three factors in deciding whether to stay
litigation pending reexamination of the patents-in-suit: “(1) whether a stay would
unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party; (2)
whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case; and (3)
whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set.”

Ralph

Gonnocci Revocable Living Trust v. Three M Tool & Mach., Inc., 68 U.S.P.Q.2d
1755, 1757 (E.D. Mich. 2003).
The first factor weighs in favor of a stay because Plaintiff is not a business
competitor of Defendants’. Plaintiff is simply a patent-holding company and, should
Defendants be found liable, legal relief will adequately remedy Plaintiff’s claims.
Plaintiff will not be unduly prejudiced by a stay.
The second factor weighs in favor of a stay because the U.S. Patent Office’s
determinations will likely be dispositive of the issues in this case. And if they are not
dispositive, the U.S. Patent Office’s determinations will significantly narrow the
questions for trial.
The third factor weighs in favor of staying this case because the parties have not
completed discovery, there is no trial date set; there is not even a scheduling order
entered yet in this case. Accordingly,
2

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Stay [10] is
GRANTED.
The case is STAYED without prejudice to Plaintiff’s rights, pending conclusion
of the United States Patent and Trademark Office reexamination of the patent-in-suit.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2015

s/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge

3