Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Meyer Products LLC

Filing 48

ORDER granting 47 Joint Motion to Stay. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 12/23/15. (jat)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

DOUGLAS DYNAMICS, LLC,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.

14-cv-886-jdp

MEYER PRODUCTS LLC,
Defendant.

Plaintiff Douglas Dynamics, LLC accuses defendant Meyer Products LLC of infringing
its patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,928,757, for a snowplow mounting assembly. After Douglas
initiated this lawsuit, Meyer petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) for inter
partes review of the ’757 patent on May 21, 2015. Meyer asked the court to stay the case the
next week. Dkt. 12. The court declined to do so, but invited the parties to renew the motion
in the event that PTAB granted the petition. Dkt. 23. PTAB granted the petition on
December 9, 2015, and has initiated review. Its final written decision is statutorily required
to be completed with 12 months, or at most 18 months if good cause is shown for an
extension. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11). The parties have jointly moved to stay the case pending
PTAB’s final written decision, Dkt. 47, and the court will grant the motion.
The factors favor staying the case. See VirtualAgility, Inc. v. Salesforce.com, 759 F.3d
1307, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (setting out factors for considering a stay under the AIA
provisions for covered business method patents); NFC Tech. LLC v. HTC Am., Inc., No. 13-cv1058, 2015 WL 1069111, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015) (applying the VirtualAgility
factors to inter partes review). First, the parties have moved jointly; thus, there is no prejudice
to either party in granting the stay. Second, PTAB’s decision on the validity of the only

patent in this case will likely simplify the issues and streamline the trial. Third, although the
case has progressed somewhat and the trial date has been scheduled, there is still much to be
done. Expert disclosures and dispositive motions are not yet due, and discovery is not
scheduled to close until July. Accordingly, a stay would spare everyone a significant amount
of work and expense until PTAB reaches its decision.
This case will be stayed until PTAB issues its final written decision. At that point, the
parties should promptly inform the court of PTAB’s decision and present the best approach
to resolve whatever issues remain.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the joint motion for stay, Dkt. 47, is GRANTED.
Entered December 23, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2