Crest Audio, Inc. v. QSC Audio Products, LLC

Filing 147

ORDER granting 133 Motion to Stay Proceedings. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 06/05/2014. (JA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
CREST AUDIO, INC.
vs.

PLAINTIFF
Civil Action No. 3:12-CV-755-CWR-FKB

QSC AUDIO PRODUCTS, LLC

DEFENDANT
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Defendant QSC Audio Products, LLC’s Motion to
Stay Pending Inter Partes Review, Docket No. 133, which the Defendant supports with its
memorandum of law, Docket No. 134, and rebuttal, Docket No. 146. Plaintiff Crest Audio, Inc.
opposes the motion. See Docket No. 141. Having considered the parties’ submissions and
relevant law, the Court finds that the Motion is well taken and should be GRANTED.
“Courts have inherent power to manage their dockets and stay proceedings, including the
authority to order a stay pending conclusion” of a Patent and Trademark Office inter partes
review. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426-27 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted); see
E-Watch, Inc. v. Lorex Canada, Inc., No. H-12-3314, 2013 WL 5425298, at *1-3 (S.D. Tex.
Sept. 26, 2013). Courts often consider three factors when determining whether a stay is
appropriate: “1) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set, 2) whether
a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case[,] and 3) whether a stay would
unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving party.” Anascape,
Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., 475 F. Supp. 2d 612, 615 (E.D. Tex. 2007) (citation omitted). The
above factors weigh in favor of staying these proceedings. Although the Case Management
Order includes a trial date, discovery has not concluded, and a trial date has not officially been

set. Furthermore, the inter partes review will likely simplify the issues before the Court.
Finally, a stay would not unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to Plaintiff.
Based on the foregoing, the Motion to Stay is hereby granted. This matter is stayed until
the Patent and Trademark Office has concluded its inter partes review of the patentability of the
claims of United States Patent Nos. 5,652,542 and 6,023,153.
SO ORDERED, this the 5th day of June, 2014.

s/ Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2