Randall May International, Inc. v. Deg Music Products, Inc.

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2009-1367
RANDALL MAY INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee,
and
RANDALL MAY,
Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee,
v.
DEG MUSIC PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant,
and
DYNASTY USA,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
in case no. 05-CV-0894, Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr.
ON MOTION
Before MAYER, CLEVENGER, and RADER, Circuit Judges.
MAYER Circuit Judge.
ORDER
DEG Music Products, Inc. submits a motion, which we treat as a petition for a
writ of mandamus within the context of this appeal, to stay a trial on damages in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California pending disposition of
this appeal. Randall May International, Inc. opposes. DEG Music replies.

-- 1 of 3 --

DEG Music filed this appeal seeking review of the district court's determination
that it infringes Randall May's patent related to a drum carrier. The district court stated
that it entered a judgment that was final except for an accounting.* The district court
also entered an injunction and ordered a recall of products from dealers and
distributors. It ordered that the injunction, the recall order, and any trial on damages
would be stayed if DEC Music posted a $500,000 bond.
In its motion, DEC Music does not seek to stay the injunction or recall order.
Instead, DEC Music focuses solely on the district court's determination not to stay the
trial on damages. In another case, In re Calmar, 854 F.2d 461,464 (Fed. Cir. 1988), we
considered a mandamus petition that involved, inter alia, whether a district court should
stay a damages trial pending the disposition of an appeal of a judgment that was final
except for an accounting. We stated:
Hence, it is clear that the purpose of the legislation, [28 U.S.C.] §
1292(c)(2), allowing interlocutory appeals in patent cases, was to permit a
stay of a damages trial. Thus there is no conflict between § 1292(c)(2)
and [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 62(a)'s grant of the discretion to stay or proceed with
the damages trial during appeal. Indeed, in recognition of the district
court's discretion, this court has repeatedly denied, in unpublished
opinions, motions to stay damages trials during appeals in patent cases.
[Emphasis in original.]
Calmar, 854 F.2d at 464. Cf. In re Princo Corp., 478 F.3d 1345, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(granting petition for writ of mandamus to stay district court proceedings when a statute,
28 U.S.C. § 1659, required a stay of district court proceedings due to related
proceedings before the International Trade Commission).
It appears that there is a pending claim related to damages for breach of
contract. Thus, despite the district court's statement that the case is final except for an
accounting, it might not be final except for an accounting of patent damages if other
types of damages remain to be decided. In any event, because the district court's order
is appealable as an order granting injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1292(a)(1)
and (c)(1), we need not decide whether we would also have jurisdiction under §
1292(c)(2).
2009-1367 -2-

-- 2 of 3 --

Generally, the power of a trial court to stay its own proceedings is a matter of
discretion, "incidental in the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of
the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for
litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must
weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance." Landis v. N. Am. Co. 299
U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936).
The filing of the bond was required by the district court to obtain a stay of the
injunction, the recall order and any trial on damages. Requiring a bond to obtain a stay
of an injunction or recall order is not unusual. Although the additional tying of the bond
to any stay of a trial on damages does not appear to be routine, the district court could
have, within its discretion, determined not to stay the trial on damages without
mentioning the bond. In any event, because DEG Music has not shown clear
entitlement to the relief sought, i.e., it has not shown a clear abuse of discretion, we
deny its request.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
FOR THE COURT
JUL 3 0 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly
Date Jan Horbaly
Clerk
cc: Dennis G. Martin, Esq.
Peter R. Afrasiabi, Esq.
s8
FILEAppets OR cougr OF F
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
JUL 3 0 2009
JIM MAW
CIERK
2009-1367 - 3 -

-- 3 of 3 --