Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying without prejudice Defendant's 51 Motion to Consolidate in Case No. 15-cv-13200 ("Suit 1") and granting Defendant's 6 Motion to Stay in Case No. 17-cv-30128 ("Suit 2"). Plaintiff initiated Suit 1 in August of 2015, alleging infringement of two product patents. Upon Defendant's motion, and initially over Plaintiff's opposition, which was later withdrawn, this court stayed that action pending trial and appeal of two suits brought by Plaintiff in the Eastern District of North Carolina concerning the same product patents. Over a year after this court stayed Suit 1, Plaintiff initiated Suit 2 against the same Defendant, alleging infringement of a process patent that is a "continuation" of the product patents at issue in Suit 1 and concerns methods for those products' manufacture. Defendant then moved to stay Suit 2 to avoid duplication with both Suit 1 and the North Carolina actions. Separately, Defendant moved to consolidate the actions because they involved overlapping issues of fact and law. Plaintiff does not oppose consolidation and concedes that the scope of discovery will be substantially identical between Suit 1 and Suit 2. Plaintiff opposes, however, continuation of the stay in Suit 1 or imposition of a Stay in Suit 2. Finding the facts and legal issues substantially related in each suit, to further the convenience of all parties and witnesses, and for the sake of judicial efficiency, the court now grants the Motion to Stay in Suit 2. The Motion to Consolidate is, however, denied without prejudice. While the above motions remained pending, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed underlying holdings in the North Carolina actions that, inter alia, dismissed the patent suits for lack of standing. (Fed. Cir. Ct. Case Nos. 17-1934 & 17-2022). Defendant's briefs have suggested they would file motions challenging jurisdiction upon such a ruling from the Circuit Court, and consolidation remains premature until such filings are made or disavowed. Accordingly, the parties are directed to file a joint status report, not to exceed three pages, in Suit 1 by June 26, 2018, advising of their positions on the need for continuance of the stay imposed in both cases. Additionally, Defendant shall advise whether they will file dispositive motions in Suit 1 in light of the Federal Circuit's ruling. Upon resolution of such motion, or once confirmed that it will not be sought or will be sought on a consolidated basis in both actions, Defendants may move for consolidation if necessary. (Lindsay, Maurice).
14
Filed: 2/27/2018, Entered: 2/27/2018
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 9 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. ALLOWD. Added Joseph J. Zito, Esq.. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice must register for electronic filing if the attorney does not already have an ECF account in this district. To register go to the Court website at www.mad.uscourts.gov. Select Case Information, then Electronic Filing (CM/ECF) and go to the CM/ECF Registration Form. (Lindsay, Maurice)
REPLY to Response to 6 MOTION to Stay Litigation Pending Resolution of Concurrent Federal Litigation Proceedings (Leave to File Reply Granted on 12/28/2017 (Dkt. 12)) filed by Dielectrics, Inc.. (Coyle, Steven)
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 11 Motion for Leave to File Document ; Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should now file the document for which leave to file has been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Counsel must include - Leave to file granted on (date of order)- in the caption of the document. (Healy, Bethaney)
Assented to MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Support of Dielectrics, Inc.'s Motion to Stay Litigation Pending Resolution of Concurrent Federal Litigation Proceedings by Dielectrics, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Coyle, Steven)
Opposition re 6 MOTION to Stay Litigation Pending Resolution of Concurrent Federal Litigation Proceedings filed by Polyzen, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - #142 Order dated February 18, 2015, # 2 Exhibit B - # 165 Order dated August 7, 2015, # 3 Exhibit C - #191 Judgment, # 4 Exhibit D - Jury Verdict)(Agin, Warren)
Assented to MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for admission of Joseph J. Zito Filing fee: $ 100, receipt number 0101-6927656 by Polyzen, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Joseph J. Zito)(Agin, Warren)
MEMORANDUM in Support re 6 MOTION to Stay Litigation Pending Resolution of Concurrent Federal Litigation Proceedings filed by Dielectrics, Inc.. (Coyle, Steven)
MOTION to Stay Litigation Pending Resolution of Concurrent Federal Litigation Proceedings by Dielectrics, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Coyle, Steven)
Summons Issued as to Dielectrics, Inc.. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (Lindsay, Maurice)
Third party AI contribution in government documents
Possible
Document content is reproduced directly from government sources. Some filings in our database may themselves contain AI-generated content submitted by third parties to government agencies.
Update
Alerts
Jump
