in Re Sdi Technologies, Inc v. U.S. Dist. Court for the South- ern Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 1989

# NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

IN RE SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Petitioner.

Miscellaneous Docket No. 105

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in
case no. 09-CV-11439, Judge William G. Young.

Before NEWMAN, LINN, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
LINN, Circuit Judge.

## ORDER

SDI Technologies, Inc. (SDI) petitions for a writ of
mandamus to direct the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts to vacate its September 12,
2011 order and direct the district court to stay proceed-
ings pending the conclusion of the reexamination of U.S.
Patent No. 7,277,765 (the '765 patent). Respondent Bose
Corporation (Bose) opposes.

This petition arises out of a complaint filed by Bose at
the District Court for the District of Massachusetts charg-
ing SDI, Imation Corporation, Memorex Products, Inc.,
3XM Consulting, LLC, and DPI, Inc. with infringement of

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="IN RE SDI TECHNOLOGIES" -->

the '765 patent. The case was originally assigned to
Judge Patti B. Saris. A few months after the complaint
was brought, several of the defendants filed an inter
parties request for reexamination of the '765 patent at the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Once the PTO
decided to grant the request, Judge Saris agreed to grant
the defendants' motion for a stay of proceedings as long as
PTO proceedings were not taking too long.

On February 25, 2011-approximately a year after
the stay went into effect-the case was reassigned to
Judge William G. Young. During a scheduling conference
the next month, Judge Young took up a previously sub-
mitted request by Bose to lift the stay based on the length
of time of the PTO's proceedings. During the conference,
Judge Young explained that he did not intend to allow the
broad stay to remain in place, but offered to continue the
stay until resolution of summary judgment motions based
at least in part on the prior art before the PTO on reex-
amination.

On April 18, 2011, the defendants moved for summary
judgment of invalidity. On July 5, 2011, after reviewing
the motion and response and after conducting a hearing
on the matter, Judge Young denied the motion for sum-
mary judgment. The defendants thereafter sought to
continue the stay, which was denied by the court on
September 12, 2011. This petition followed.

The remedy of mandamus is available only in extraor-
dinary situations to correct a clear abuse of discretion or
usurpation of judicial power. In re Calmar, Inc., 854 F.2d
461, 464 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A party seeking a writ bears the
burden of proving that it has no other means of attaining
the relief desired, Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the South-
ern Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989), and that the
right to issuance of the writ is "clear and indisputable,"
Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35
(1980). A court may deny mandamus relief "even though

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="IN RE SDI TECHNOLOGIES" -->

on normal appeal, a court might find reversible error." In
re Cordis Corp., 769 F.2d 733, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

SDI has not, in the papers submitted to this court,
met the exacting standard required for mandamus. Even
the cases relied upon by SDI make clear that a motion to
stay an action pending the resolution of a related matter
in the PTO is directed to the sound discretion of the
district court, see, e.g., K.G. Motors, Inc. v. Specialized
Bicycle Components, Inc., No. 08-6422, 2009 WL 2179129
at *2 (W.D.N.Y. July 22, 2009), and SDI fails to provide
any authority that would demonstrate a clear and undis-
putable right to relief here. Additionally, that a petitioner
may suffer hardship, inconvenience, or an unusually
complex trial does not provide a basis for a court to grant
mandamus. See United States v. Watson, 66 C.C.P.A. 107,
603 F.2d 192, 196-97 (1979). Cf. Federal Trade Comm'n
v. Standard Oil Co., 449 U.S. 232, 244 (1980) (expenses
and burdens of defending action do not constitute irrepa-
rable harm). The petition is therefore denied.

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

FOR THE COURT

JAN 12 2012

Date

/s/ Jan Horbaly
Jan Horbaly
Clerk

cc: Matthew B. Lowrie, Esq.
Mark J. Herbert, Esq.
Clerk, United States District Court For The District
Of Massachusetts
$20

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
JAN 12 2012

JAN HORBALY
CLERK