Opinion
Case No. 8:10-cv-01232-EAK-TBM.
August 12, 2010
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the following: Defendant, Macho Products, LLC's, Motion to Stay the Proceedings and Memorandum of Law in Support thereof (Doc. 10) and Plaintiff, SDJP Patent Group, LLC's, Response. (Doc. 14). Based on the following discussion, the Defendant's motion is denied.
Relevant Procedural Background
1. On June 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed a qui tam Complaint against Defendant for false marketing arising under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., and under the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, et seq. (Doc. 1).
2. On June 28, 2010, Defendant filed its Motion to Stay the Proceeding and Memorandum of Law in Support thereof. Defendant argues in favor of a stay pending the outcome of an appeal now pending before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, namely, Stauffer v. Brooks Brothers, Appeal No. 2009-1428. This issue before the court in that case is what is necessary for a non-competitor defendant to establish Article III standing.
3. On July 25, 2010, Plaintiff filed its Response with Accompanying Authority to Defendant's Motion to Stay. (Doc. 14). Plaintiff opposes the stay.
Discussion
It has come to the Court's attention that on August 3, 2010, oral arguments were had in the Stauffer case (which Defendant solely relies upon in support of the motion for stay). Given this fact, coupled with the fact that the instant matter between Plaintiff and Defendant is in the early stages, the issue of a stay is not well taken. The parties may proceed forward and if the decision in the pending case is determinative of an issue in this case, the issue may be addressed at a future time. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED: Defendant's motion is denied (Doc. 10) and the parties are directed to resume proceedings in this matter. Defendant may have leave to revisit the issue of a stay should circumstances change to warrant a stay.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida.