November 23, 2020
Authored and Edited by Meredith H. Boerschlein; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
In an order issued on September 28, 2020, the Federal Circuit denied Sand Revolution’s petition for writ of mandamus. In re Sand Revolution LLC, No. 2020-145, 2020 WL 5757591, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2020). In its petition, Sand Revolution urged the Federal Circuit to direct the District Court for the Western District of Texas to vacate its order denying a litigation stay and enter an order staying the litigation pending resolution of a related IPR. Pet. for Writ of Mandamus at 5.
The proceedings underlying the mandamus petition began in August 2018 when Continental Intermodal Group brought a patent infringement action against Sand Revolution. Sand Revolution, 2020 WL 5757591, at *1. Almost a year later, Sand Revolution filed a petition for IPR of the asserted claims. Resp. to Pet. for Writ of Mandamus 5. Although the PTAB initially denied institution, upon rehearing, it agreed to institute review. Sand Revolution, 2020 WL 5757591, at *1. Thereafter, Sand Revolution moved to stay the litigation, which the district court denied. Id.
In its petition to the Federal Circuit, Sand Revolution argued that the district court abused its discretion by failing to meaningfully consider the traditional stay factors. Pet. 12-16. Supporting this argument, Sand Revolution highlighted the short time in which the district court issued its order—only five hours after Sand Revolution filed the motion—and the brevity of the order. Id. at 4, 13. In addition, Sand Revolution alleged that the district court’s reasons for denial (i.e., the court’s “strong[] belie[f]” in the Seventh Amendment, the fact that the case had been pending since 2017, the observation that “[d]enying the stay would allow the Parties to obtain a more timely and complete resolution of infringement, invalidity, and damages issues,” and because Plaintiff opposed the stay) were incompatible with the intent of the AIA to provide an alternative to litigation. Id. at 16. And lastly, Sand Revolution argued that it had no other means to obtain the requested relief. Id. at 28.
Continental Intermodal Group advanced two main arguments to oppose the petition. First, it argued that Sand Revolution could not show it had a clear and indisputable right to stay the litigation, asserting that mandamus is almost never appropriate to overturn a court’s discretionary decision, including the decision whether to grant a stay pending resolution of an IPR. Resp to Pet. 12-13. Second, Continental Intermodal Group alleged that the district court’s exercise of discretion in denying the stay was reasonable because each factor weighed against a stay. Id. at 19-22.
In its order denying mandamus, the Federal Circuit reasoned that Sand Revolution did not meet the exacting standard for obtaining relief by way of mandamus. Sand Revolution, 2020 WL 5757591, at *1. Specifically, the Federal Circuit stated that it could not determine that the district court clearly overstepped its authority, that Sand Revolution showed a clear and indisputable right to a stay, or that Sand Revolution would be irreparably harmed by having to face the burden and expense of district court litigation. Id. Notably, however, the Federal Circuit seemed to admonish the district court’s stay denial stating “[t]he district court’s ruling was cursory and this court could have benefited from further elaboration based on the traditional stay factors.” Id.
Although the Federal Circuit’s order is relatively short, it provides messages for both district courts and for litigants facing similar situations. For litigants, the burden for obtaining relief related to a litigation stay by way of mandamus is very high. For district courts, when granting or denying a stay, courts should provide a discussion of the traditional factors.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), Western District of Texas, America Invents Act (AIA)
Copyright © 2020 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Hybrid Conference
2024 California Intellectual Property Law Institute
October 21-22,2024
San Francisco
Conference
2024 Licensing Executives Society USA – Canada Annual Meeting
October 20-23, 2024
New Orleans
Conference
4th Annual Passport to Proficiency on the Essentials of Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA
October 8-24, 2024
Virtual
Hybrid Conference
2024 New York Intellectual Property Law Institute
September 30 - October 1, 2024
New York
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.