Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Stiles v. Target Corporation, 2:19-CV-02144-JAM-KJN. (2020)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20200309678 Visitors: 6
Filed: Mar. 06, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 06, 2020
Summary: ORDER TO STAY CASE JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . ORDER The parties, Plaintiff Sharidan L. Stiles and Defendant Target Corporation, have presented a Stipulation to Stay the above-captioned action, on the following agreed premises: This is an action for alleged infringement of two patents owned by Plaintiff: United States Patent No. 9,108,329 ("the '329 Patent") and United States Patent No. 9,707,689 ("the '689 Patent"). This action involves a single accused product: the "Ardell Precisi
More

ORDER TO STAY CASE

ORDER

The parties, Plaintiff Sharidan L. Stiles and Defendant Target Corporation, have presented a Stipulation to Stay the above-captioned action, on the following agreed premises:

This is an action for alleged infringement of two patents owned by Plaintiff: United States Patent No. 9,108,329 ("the '329 Patent") and United States Patent No. 9,707,689 ("the '689 Patent"). This action involves a single accused product: the "Ardell Precision Shaper," distributed and sold by American International Industries ("AII") and sold at retail by Target Corporation. This accused product is at issue in other cases pending in this Court, including Stiles, et al. v. Walmart Inc., et al., E.D. Cal. Case No. 14-cv-02234 ("The 2014 Action," which alleges infringement of the '329 patent by the Ardell Precision Shaper), and American International Industries v. Stiles, E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:19-cv-01218 ("the Declaratory Relief Action," which alleges non-infringement of the '689 patent by the Ardell Precision Shaper). The Declaratory Relief Action was previously deemed related to the 2014 Action. (The 2014 Action, Dkt. No. 276) After recent judicial transfers, the 2014 Action and the Declaratory Relief Action are now pending before Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller. (The 2014 Action, Dkt. No. 389; Declaratory Relief Action, Dkt. No. 27)

The parties agreed that liability issues regarding the '329 and '689 patents should proceed in the 2014 Action and Declaratory Relief Actions prior to active litigation of the above-captioned action, in order to save substantial court and attorney resources, avoid duplication of efforts and facilitate more uniform control of the litigation. Accordingly, the parties stipulated to a stay of this case until an initial patent infringement liability determination is made in either the 2014 Action or the Declaratory Relief Action, after which point the parties propose to file a joint report informing the Court whether they agree that the stay in this case should continue pending further proceedings in the 2014 Action and/or the Declaratory Relief Action. Accordingly, the parties requested that the Court enter the following Order to stay all but administrative activities in the above-captioned case.

FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, the Court hereby orders that litigation of the above-captioned action is stayed, other than for administrative activities, pending a determination in Stiles, et al. v. Walmart Inc., et al., E.D. Cal. Case No. 14-cv-02234 or American International Industries v. Stiles, E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:19-cv-01218, of whether the Ardell Precision Shaper infringes either the '329 or '689 Patent. Upon a determination in either of these actions as to whether the Ardell Precision Shaper infringes the '329 or '689 Patents, the parties shall promptly confer and file a joint report informing the Court whether they agree that the stay in this case should continue pending any further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer