Opinion
4:22-cv-204-DPM
11-22-2022
PPC BROADBAND, INC. PLAINTIFF v. PERFECTVISION MANUFACTURING, INC. DEFENDANT
ORDER
D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge.
PPC Broadband alleges that PerfectVision is infringing on its patent for coaxial cable connectors. The parties have litigation history about this patent. Perfect 10 Antenna Co. v. John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc., Case No. 4:09-cv-939-SWW (E.D. Ark.); John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. v. Perfect 10 Antenna Co., Case No. 5:09-cv-1375-GTS (N.D.N.Y.); John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. v. Pace Electronics, Inc., Case No. 0:10-cv-64-MJD (D. Minn.). The present question is whether to stay this case pending inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
All things considered, a stay makes good sense. Camelbak Products, LLC v. Zak Designs, Inc., 2022 WL 2348676, at *2 (W.D. Ark. 29 June 2022). This case is young. And even though the parties are direct competitors, PPC Broadband hasn't shown that this competition will result in undue prejudice or that granting the stay will give PerfectVision a clear tactical advantage. ZeaVision, LLC v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 2022 WL 715013, at *4-5 (E.D. Mo. 10 Mar. 2022). PPC Broadband points out an interesting limitations issue facing the inter partes review petition. But there is much to be gained and little to be lost by staying this case because the Board will decide whether to grant the petition in less than four months.
PerfectVision's motion, Doc. 28, is granted with caveats. The Final Scheduling Order, Doc. 26, is suspended. Here are the caveats: The parties must file a joint report by 23 December 2022 with a proposed Amended Final Scheduling Order that pushes all deadlines forward four months, plus suggests any other needed tweaks. And, if the Board does not institute inter partes review, the parties should be prepared to engage in discovery immediately on the infringement contentions. Case stayed until further Order.
So Ordered.