District Judge Colleen McMahon denied defendant Deluxe’s motion to stay a damages trial pending an interlocutory appeal of the court’s claim construction and judgments that MPV’s patents were not invalid and that Deluxe infringed them. The court considered the movant’s likelihood of success on appeal and balanced five factors:

(1) the private interests of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously with the civil litigation as balanced against the prejudice to the plaintiff if delayed; (2) the private interests of and burden on the defendant; (3) the interests of the courts; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest.

The court found that Deluxe failed to demonstrate a “substantial possibility” of success on appeal, noting that at least one of the liability rulings was “not even a close issue.” In fact, Judge McMahon stated that “Deluxe has not offered me any reason to doubt the correctness of my previous rulings.”

Balancing the five factors also did not weigh in Deluxe’s favor. The court found that staying a damages trial (1) would impose further financial hardship on MPV as a small company “whose commercialization efforts were frustrated by [Deluxe’s] rampant infringement,” and would delay payment of damages more than three years after the court ruled that Deluxe infringed MPV’s patent; (2) would not help Deluxe avoid the burden and expense of a short damages trial for which nearly all the preparation work had been done; (3) would best serve the interests of the court by resolving the case without further delay; (4) would not affect the interests of non-parties; and (5) would not affect the public interest.

Case: Medien Patent Verwaltung AG v. Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc., No. 10 Civ. 4119 (CM) (GWG), 2014 BL 79302 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2014)