For defendants in patent infringement cases, moving to stay the case pending the outcome of a concurrent U.S. Patent Office reexamination proceeding is a fairly common building block that has the potential to streamline or even eliminate a costly and lengthy litigation. And, as one litigant that makes construction-grade joint systems recently found out, under the right conditions, courts are willing to grant such motions to stay.
Plaintiff Emseal sued several defendants, including Schul International Co. and Willseal, LLC, in the District of New Hampshire, alleging they had infringed Emseal’s patent for a fire and water resistant expansion joint system. Schul then filed a request for reexamination of Emseal’s patent at the Patent Office, which determined that the request raised ten substantial new questions of patentability with respect to all 37 patent claims. The joint defendants subsequently moved to stay the litigation pending the outcome of the reexam proceeding.
Emseal opposed the motion on four bases. Emseal argued that a stay of the litigation would (1) delay its ability to exclude defendants from producing and marketing (allegedly) infringing products; (2) delay discovery, leading to the potential loss of essential materials and testimony; (3) “avoid” a hearing on its motion to dismiss Defendants’ counterclaims and “deprive” Emseal an opportunity to defend itself against Defendants’ counterclaims; and (4) allow defendants the benefit of a lower standard of proof (i.e., preponderance of the evidence) in the reexam than the clear and convincing standard used by federal courts to invalidate patents.
The court did not find any of Emseal’s arguments persuasive. With respect to the first argument, Judge McAuliffe noted that Emseal had not sought a temporary restraining order or moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent Defendants from marketing and selling allegedly infringing products—thereby raising an implication that Emseal was “content to let this litigation proceed to its conclusion and, should it prevail, that monetary damages would be sufficient to make it whole.”
Regarding Emseal’s second and third arguments, the court found Emseal failed to show that it would be prejudiced by a delay in discovery and that, if the patent-in-suit survived reexam, the court would have “ample opportunity” to decide Emseal’s counterclaim motions. Finally, Judge McAuliffe was not swayed by Emseal’s burden of proof argument, stating that “[w]hether this court grants a stay or not, should the [Patent Office] invalidate that patent, all of the claims advanced in Emseal’s consolidated complaint will be foreclosed, as each relies upon defendants having unlawfully infringed Emseal’s intellectual property rights, as embodied in the ‘495 patent.”
In light of the above factors, the court found that a limited stay of six months would be appropriate as the outcome of the reexam would potentially simplify the issues in question and streamline a potential trial. The court also noted that a limited stay was also supported by the fact that the case was at a very early stage and no substantial discovery was underway.
Judge McAuliffe’s opinion provides a helpful framework for patent litigants that may want to file (or oppose) a motion to stay pending reexamination. Defendants might consider such a strategy early on in a case to enhance the likelihood that a stay will be granted.
The case is Emseal Joint Systems, Ltd. v. Schul International Co., LLC et al., Case No. 14-cv-358-SM (D.N.H.), and pending in the District of New Hampshire. A copy of the order can be found here.
Patrick J. Niedermeier is an attorney in the Litigation Department and Intellectual Property Group. Patrick assists clients in obtaining and enforcing intellectual property rights both in the U.S. and abroad. He represents corporate clients throughout the complex patent litigation process, including pre-suit investigations and client counseling; negotiating discovery disputes; drafting claim construction, summary judgment, expert, and pre- and post-trial briefs; assisting with trial preparation; and participating at trial. He also has assisted with preparing appellate...
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 3 Grant Square #141 Hinsdale, IL 60521 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll free (877) 357-3317. If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.