In re Princo Corp., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2007) (Bryson, Linn, DYK) (S.D.N.Y.: Brieant)
KEY WORDS: CHOICE OF LAW, MANDAMUS, APPELLATE JURISDICTION, STAY
Fed Cir grants writ of mandamus requiring district court to stay its action until parallel ITC action is finished. Both the ITC case and this case had previously been on appeal and remanded. Applying its own law, the Fed Cir first refused to decline jurisdiction simply because the district court’s ruling was procedural and unrelated to patent law, since the ruling could directly affect the ITC proceeding via collateral estoppel effect. On the merits, the Fed Cir determined that the phrase “until the determination of the Commission becomes final” in Section 1659 means “finality including judicial review,” consistent with other courts’ interpretation of most other similar provisions in the law, and consistent with the purpose of the statute (i.e., preventing parallel proceedings). The Fed Cir rejected respondent Phillips’ arguments that (1) relief here is meaningless because only computing damages (which the ITC does not do) remains in the district court (the statute draws no such line); (2) the issues are all different between the district court and the ITC (Phillips is just wrong); (3) Princo waived its rights (Princo’s initial request for a stay was timely made, and Princo diligently pursued reinstatement of the stay when the district court lifted it); and (4) Princo waived by filing a summary judgment motion (Princo couldn’t be expected to gamble that the stay would be granted).
Comments