All Courts |
Federal Courts |
US Court of Appeals Cases |
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
2011-07 |
-
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential United States Court of AppeaIs for the FederaI Circuit IN RE CHICCO USA, INC., Petitioner. Miscel1aneous Docket No. 977 - On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in case no. l0~CV-74U, Judge LaWrence F. Stengel. ON PETITION Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and O'MALLEY, Circuit Judges. RADER, Chief Ju,dge. 0 R D E R Chicco USA, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus to direct the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to vacate its order staying pro- ceedings pending reexamination of certain claims of the patent at issue SunShine Kids JuVeni1e Prod11cts, LLC opposes Chicc0 replies lN RE CHICCO USA 2 On February 19, 2010, Chicco filed a complaint with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of PennsylVania alleging that Sunshine infringed one of its patents. During discovery and prior to any claim construction hearing, Sunshine filed a motion to stay district court proceedings pending reexamination of some of the claims at issue. 011 October 7, 2010, before Chicco responded to the motion, the district court granted Sun- shine’s motion, stating that no party would be prejudiced by the stay. Subsequently, Chicco filed a motion to lift the stay on October 29, 2010, and a renewed motion to lift the stay on NoVember 15, 2010. The district court has not yet ruled on those motions. Chicco petitions for a writ of mandamus to direct the district court to vacate its October 7, 2010 stay order. Chicco asserts that the district court clearly abused its discretion by failing to allow Chicco to respond to Sun- shine’s stay motion and by failing to provide adequate reasons for granting the stay. Chicco further asserts that it will be prejudiced and irreparably harmed by the stay because Chicco will continue to lose market share to Sunshine. The remedy of mandamus is available only in extraor- dinary situations to correct a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power. In. re Calmar, Inc.,
854 F.2d 461, 464 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A party seeking a writ bears the burden of proving that it has no other means of attaining the relief desired, Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the South- errt Dist. of I0wa,
490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989), and that the right to issuance of the writ is "clear and indisputable," Allied Chemical Corp. u. Dai]‘l0n, Inc.,
449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). A court may deny mandamus relief "even though on normal appeal, a court might find reversible err0r.” 111 re C0rdis C'orp.,
769 F.2d 733, 737 (Fed. Ci_r. 1985). Chicco has not, in the papers submitted to this court, met the exacting standard required for mandamus with g 3 IN RE CHICCO USA regard to the district court’s October 7, 2010 stay order. We note, howeVer, that the court’s failure to provide any explanation for granting the stay, despite the fact that not all of the claims in suit are in reexamination, and long delay in ru}ing on Chicco’s motions to lift the stay might tip the balance in favor of mandamus relief upon reappli- cation in the future We assume, however, that the court will soon address the pending motions and then provide an adequate explanation for its decision to keep a stay in place in these circumstances Accordingly, IT ls ORDERED THAT: Chicco’s petition for a writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice to renewal, either following the district court’s disposition of the motions to lift the __stay, or upon further inaction in connection with those motions. FoR THE Co`URT 1 2 2011 -mt lsi J an Horbaly Date J an Horbaly Clerk cc: Anthony S. Volpe, Esq. 3 1- ED Jonathan Saul Franklin, Esq. AFpEM_S mg ss §§ §§ >_'!l Lc1Rcu\T JUL 1 2 2011 s20 .lAN HDRBALY Cl.EHi
Document Info
Docket Number: 2011-M977
Citation Numbers: 429 F. App'x 993
Judges: Lourie, O'Malley, Rader
Filed Date: 7/12/2011
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 8/5/2023