Motion to Stay pending the Federal Circuit's Decision in Stauffer v. Brooks Bros. Denied in False Marking Case

Prejudice from Stay
The court denied defendants' motion to stay pending the Federal Circuit's decision in Stauffer v. Brooks Bros., 615 F. Supp. 2d 248 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). "If the issue in Stauffer. . . is novel as defendants assert, then it may be appealed beyond the Federal Circuit to the Supreme Court, leaving a final decision on the constitutional issue in Stauffer years in the future. . . . Indeed, since [plaintiff] claims to be a direct competitor, there is also the possibility that a late-assertion of actual damages will render the issue in Stauffer a moot point here. . . . Even defendants argue only that any decision in this case could be guided by a Federal Circuit decision on the Stauffer appeal."

Simplification of Issues
Defendants' motion to stay plaintiff's false marking claims pending the Federal Circuit's decision in Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co., 646 F. Supp. 2d 790 (E.D. Va. 2009), was denied. "[W]hile defendants claim the appeal in Pequignot raises issues regarding some relevant standards used in deciding false markings cases, they fail to explain why a decision on those standards justifies a stay in this case. . . . Such uncertainty regarding whether a decision in the other cases will actually simplify the issues in this case weighs against staying the case."

In denying defendants' motion to stay pending the resolution of Stauffer v. Brooks Bros., 615 F. Supp. 2d 248 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), and Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co., 646 F. Supp. 2d 790 (E.D. Va. 2009), and Brule Research Assoc. Team, L.L.C. v. A.O. Smith Corp., Case No. 08-C-1116 (E.D. Wis. 2009), the court found that "[m]ost cases, even those turning principally on discrete issues of law, are dependent on their facts, leaving the distinct possibility that a party can distinguish otherwise controlling decisions based on factual differences. Defendant has not provided any discussion of why the facts in this case match-up so closely with those in Stauffer, Pequignot or Brule Research, to discount this possibility in this case."

Hy Cite Corporation v. Regal Ware, Inc. et al, 3-10-cv-00168 (WIWD May 19, 2010, Order) (J. Conley)