Case: In re Medical Components, Inc., Misc. Docket No. 148 (Fed. Cir. August 2, 2013) (precedential). On petition for writ of mandamus from D. Ut. Before Rader, Bryson and Wallach.

Procedural Posture: The CAFC denied Medical Components, Inc.’s (“Medcomp’s”) petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate a stay of Medcomp’s counterclaim, or alternatively dismiss Medcomp’s counterclaim without prejudice.

  • Writ of Mandamus (vacate a stay): In the underlying litigation, C.R. Bard (“Bard”) sued Medcomp for infringement of three patents, and Medcomp counterclaimed for infringement of a patent. The district court stayed the entire case after a third party requested PTO reexamination of Bard’s asserted patents. The district court denied Medcomp’s motion to allow Medcomp’s counterclaim to proceed while Bard’s claims remained stayed. The CAFC held that Medcomp failed to show that no “rational and substantive legal argument can be made” in support of the district court’s decision to stay the case.
  • Writ of Mandamus (dismissal without prejudice): The district court also denied Medcomp’s request to dismiss the counterclaim without prejudice because it would be “an end run around the stay,” amounting to “forum shopping.” The CAFC rejected Medcomp’s petition on this issue because the cost of participating in multiple litigations could support a finding of legal prejudice to Bard.