Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00323/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00323-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

George Kessel International Inc., et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

Classic Wholesales, Inc., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-323-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceeding Pending

Reexamination of Patent (Dkt. 41). Defendants request that the Court stay these proceedings

while the patent that is the subject of this litigation is reexamined by the United States Patent

and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Plaintiffs oppose this motion. Having reviewed the parties’

arguments and submissions, the Court issues this order.

BACKGROUND

On February 12, 2007, Plaintiff initiated this suit with a Complaint alleging causes 

of action for patent and trademark infringement. Plaintiff subsequently filed a First

Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on March 9, 2007. The dispute arises from two patents

owned by Plaintiffs. 

Plaintiffs promote, offer for sale, and sell digital scales for weighing small items

such as jewelry, letters, and foods. In December 2006, Plaintiffs acquired rights to a

patent (“the ‘798 patent”) for a new scale, marketed as the Jennings Digital Scale or

Case 2:07-cv-00323-SMM Document 46 Filed 02/15/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Defendants X.J. Group, Ltd. and X.J. Group (USA), Inc. were named in the FAC,

but dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. (See Dkt. 37, Order dated Oct. 30, 2007.)

- 2 -

“JScale.” Defendants’ scales include a digital pocket scale promoted and sold as the XJ4K803, which Plaintiffs allege contains substantially identical designs as those covered

by the ‘798 patent. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants featured the XJ-4K803 on the

cover of their 2006 catalog, and that Defendants have sold the XJ-4K803 in the United

States and within the State of Arizona. Two other digital scales also are alleged to

infringe the ‘798 patent. Defendants American Weigh and Classic Wholesales, Inc.

distribute digital scales under the names XP-150 and XP-250.1

 Plaintiffs further allege

that all Defendants have directly or indirectly offered for sale or sold the XP-150 and -

250 within the United States and the State of Arizona.

Plaintiffs own the trademark “CONVERTIBLE” for use on another digital scale,

and have used that mark since March 2002. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Classic

Wholesales has promoted and sold a digital scale under the CONVERTIBLE mark,

causing confusion amongst consumers of those products.

On December 4, 2007, Defendants filed a request with the PTO to conduct an ex

parte reexamination of the ‘798 patent. Defendants now seek a stay of all matters in this

litigation pending the outcome of the PTO reexamination of the ‘798 patent.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The United States Supreme Court recognized long ago that “the power to stay

proceedings is incidental to 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.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). The power to stay

proceedings calls for “an exercise of a sound discretion.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d

265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). If there is even a “fair possibility” that the stay will harm

another party, the party seeking a stay must make out a “clear case of hardship or inequity

in being required to go forward.” Id. 

Case 2:07-cv-00323-SMM Document 46 Filed 02/15/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

In deciding whether to stay litigation pending patent reexamination, courts

generally consider three factors: (1) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or create a

clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving party; (2) whether a stay will simplify the

issues in question and trial of the case; and (3) whether discovery is complete and

whether a trial date has been set. Xerox Corp. v. 3 Com Corp., 69 F. Supp. 2d 404, 406-

07 (W.D.N.Y. 1999).

DISCUSSION

A review of these factors reveals that a stay is not warranted. Although this case is

in its early stages, the Court is reluctant to issue a stay of indefinite length. Defendants

assert that the PTO must decide whether to grant or deny the reexamination within three

months of the request, but the delay could be significant if the request is granted. See,

e.g., Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. v. Advanced Flexible Composites, Inc.,

436 F. Supp. 2d 252, 253 (D. Mass. 2006)(noting the average PTO reexamination takes

21 months). A stay could prejudice Plaintiffs by delaying access to discovery and

allowing Defendants’ alleged infringement to continue in the interim. Additionally,

reexamination by the PTO would not simplify any issues relating to Plaintiffs’ trademark

infringement claim. 

The Court therefore finds that the benefits of granting Defendants’ motion to stay

do not outweigh the burdens of delay it would cause. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion to Stay Pending

Reexamination of Patent (Dkt. 41).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the parties to notify the Court of any

changed circumstances which arise from Defendants’ request for reexamination of the

‘798 patent.

DATED this 15th day of February, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00323-SMM Document 46 Filed 02/15/08 Page 3 of 3