Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Meyer Products LLC

Filing 65

ORDER denying 62 motion for stay pending appeal. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 2/27/17. (jat)

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

DOUGLAS DYNAMICS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
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 (the ’757 patent), 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. PTAB granted the petition, and the
court stayed the case pending PTAB’s final written decision on the parties’ joint motion.
Dkt. 48. PTAB issued a final written decision in Douglas’s favor on November 25, 2016, so
the court lifted the stay, Dkt. 51, and set a case schedule. Now, two months later, Meyer
moves the court to stay the case pending Meyer’s appeal of PTAB’s final written decision to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Dkt. 62.
As the parties agree, the same factors relevant to stays pending inter partes review are
relevant to stays pending appeal of PTAB’s final written decision to the Federal Circuit.
Those factors are (1) the stage of the litigation; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in
question and the trial of the case; (3) whether a stay will unduly prejudice or present a clear
tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving party; and (4) whether a stay will reduce the burden
of litigation on the parties and the court. VirtualAgility, Inc. v. Salesforce.com, 759 F.3d 1307,
1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

In 2015, after the PTAB instituted inter partes review, the court determined that those
factors favored a stay. Dkt. 48, at 1. But the circumstances have changed. This time around
Douglas opposes the stay. But this is not a decisive factor, because Douglas has previously
said that it will suffer no prejudice that cannot be remedied by money damages. Dkt. 47, at
9.
The factor that matters most here is that Meyer’s appeal concerns only a single claim
of the patent-in-suit, whereas PTAB initiated review on all six asserted claims. Thus, unlike a
successful inter partes review, a successful appeal would not be case-dispositive. The court is
not convinced that a decision in the appeal on claim 18 would have a significant “spillover”
effect on the other asserted claims. The court notes, too, that Meyer is entitled as of right to
review by the Federal Circuit, and thus there is no indication that an appeal would be
successful. The bottom line is that Meyer has not persuaded the court that it is worth waiting
for the appeal, because even if it were successful, it will not significantly simplify issues or
alleviate much of the burden on the parties or the court.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Meyer Products LLC’s motion for stay pending
appeal, Dkt. 62, is DENIED.
Entered February 27, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2