Ignite USA, LLC v. Pacific Market Int’l, LLC, No. 14 C 845, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 29, 2014) (Holderman, J.).
Judge Holderman granted defendant Pacific Marketing International’s (“PMI’s”) motion to stay plaintiff Ignite USA’s patent litigation case pending the results of PMI’s Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) seeking to invalidate Ignite USA’s asserted patent regarding a drinking container.
Ignite USA would not be prejudiced by a stay. PMI promptly filed its IPR petition and the litigation was in its early stages. Ignite USA’s own delay in filing the suit after learning of the alleged infringement — from March 2012 to April 2014 — suggested that Ignite USA would not be prejudiced by the delay. Additionally, Ignite USA’s failure to seek a preliminary injunction suggested that its claims of lost market share were not as severe as it claimed.
The stay would streamline the case. Patent Office statistics suggest an “82% probability” that the Patent Office will institute the IPR and a greater than 92% likelihood that at least one claim will be amended or cancelled outright. In fact, even an IPR decision upholding all of the claims would simplify issues by reducing PMI’s invalidity arguments. To avoid additional delay, the parties were required to report to the Court within seven days of the Patent Office’s decision on the IPR petition.
Finally, the reduced litigation burden counseled in favor of the stay. Whatever the outcome of the IPR, it would reduce the scope of the case and the work required by the parties and the Court.