Nordock Inc v. Systems Inc
Filing
241
ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 3/29/2016 GRANTING 239 Defendant's Request for Stay. Case STAYED until further order of the Court. Parties MUST FILE written notification within a week of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on Defendant's petition for certiorari review, and its decision in Samsung Electronics v. Apple, No. 15-777. (cc: all counsel)(cb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
NORDOCK INC.,
Plaintiff,
-vs-
Case No. 11-C-118
SYSTEMS INC.,
doing business as PoweRamp,
doing business as DLM Inc.
doing business as McGuire,
Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has remanded this design
patent infringement case for a new trial on damages. Defendant Systems Inc.
filed a request (ECF No. 239) that these proceedings be stayed until the
Supreme Court decided to whether to grant certiorari review in Apple Inc. v.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 786 F.3d 983, 1001-02 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Systems also indicated that it intended to file a petition for certiorari review
in this case, and requested a stay until both petitions are resolved.
After Systems’ request, the Supreme Court granted certiorari review
on question two presented by the petition in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et
al. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-777, 2016 WL 1078934 (Mem) (U.S. Mar. 21, 2016).
That question is “[w]here a design patent is applied to only a component of a
product, should an award of infringer’s profits be limited to those profits
attributable to the component?” See www.supremecourt.gov (last visited Mar.
29, 2016). Systems also has a fully briefed petition for certiorari review by the
Supreme Court.
See Systems, Inc., et al. v. Nordock, Inc., No. 15-978, 84
U.S.L.W. 3437 (filed Jan. 28, 2016).
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in
every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy
of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North Am.
Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Court has discretion to stay a proceeding
after considering and weighing the competing interests, including such things
as the hardship or inequity that would be suffered by the parties or others if
the litigation moves forward, the efficient use of judicial resources, the length
of the anticipated delay and the complexity of the issues involved. Id. at 25456.
To proceed with respect to the damages issue in this action prior to the
Supreme Court’s resolution of Samsung and/or Systems’ petition for certiorari
review could result in yet another appeal. The total profit question on which
the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Samsung is a key issue in this
case. Although Nordock claims that Systems waived the issue, it would be a
waste of resources to impanel a jury to decide 35 U.S.C. § 289 damages when
the Supreme Court is poised to decide the scope of damages under that
statute. Systems also states that whatever the Supreme Court’s decision, the
-2-
finality of the action will most likely result in a settlement of this matter
without need for retrial.
In terms of prejudice, Nordock makes the conclusory claim that it is
losing managerial resources and incurring expenses in dealing with this case.
Accepting Nordock’s claim, retrial of the damages issue prior to the Supreme
Court’s resolution of Systems’ petition for review and Samsung could increase
Nordock’s loss of managerial resources and expenses by a subsequent appeal
from that determination. The Supreme Court’s decisions may also expedite
the ultimate resolution of this action.
Having considered and balanced the interests of the litigants, counsel
and the Court, this action is STAYED until further order of the Court. The
parties MUST FILE written notification within a week of the Supreme
Court’s decision on Systems’ petition for certiorari review, and of its decision
in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-777.
SO ORDERED at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 29th day of March,
2016.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. 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?