Andersen Manufacturing Inc. v. Wyers Products Group, Inc., No. 4:2016cv00051 - Document 55 (D. Idaho 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the three Motions to supplement (docket nos. 41, 45 & 52) are GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Motion to Stay (docket no. 28) is DENIED. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. Motions term inated: 52 MOTION for Leave to File Supplement filed by Wyers Products Group, Inc., 41 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Opposition filed by Andersen Manufacturing Inc., 28 MOTION to Stay filed by Wyers Products Group, Inc., and 45 MOTION to Supplement Defendant's Motion to Stay filed by Wyers Products Group, Inc.. (km)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ANDERSEN MANUFACTURING INC., an Idaho corporation, Case No. 4:16-CV-51-BLW Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER v. WYERS PRODUCTS GROUP, INC., a Colorado corporation, Defendant. INTRODUCTION The Court has before it a motion to stay along with three motions to supplement. The motions are fully briefed and at issue. The Court will grant all three motions to supplement, and will deny the motion to stay for the reasons explained below. ANALYSIS Defendant Wyers requests a stay because the Patent Office has recently ordered the reexamination of the three patents at issue here. While the reexaminations could simplify the issues for trial, the delay will be extensive. Most of these reexaminations, including the inevitable appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, take three to five years to resolve. Signal IP, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., 2015 WL 57648331 at *2 (C.D.Calif May 26, 2015). Moreover, the simplification of issues is not automatic because if the patents survive, Wyers will be able to relitigate the issues here because it requested an ex parte reexamination, which has no preclusive effect on the Memorandum Decision & Order – page 1 challenger. Id. at *3. By the time the Patent Office granted reexaminations as to all the patents – on November 18, 2016 – this case had been pending nearly 11 months. A claim construction hearing is set for next week and is fully briefed. Given all these circumstances, the Court will deny the motion to stay. ORDER Pursuant to the Memorandum Decision set forth above, NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the three motions to supplement (docket nos. 41,45 & 52) are GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the motion to stay (docket no. 28) is DENIED. DATED: December 8, 2016 _________________________ B. Lynn Winmill Chief Judge United States District Court Memorandum Decision & Order – page 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
