Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04752/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04752-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
Counter-claimant
The Coast Distribution System, Inc.
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE COAST DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM,

INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 06-04752 JSW

ORDER DENYING THE COAST

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, INC.’S

MOTION TO STAY

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the motion to stay filed by

Defendant The Coast Distribution System, Inc. (“Coast”). Having considered the parties’

pleadings and relevant legal authority, the Court finds the matter suitable for disposition without

oral argument. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The Court HEREBY VACATES the hearing set for

March 2, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. and HEREBY DENIES Coast’s motion. The parties are HEREBY

DIRECTED to appear for the case management conference set for Friday March 2, 2007

at 1:30 p.m.

ANALYSIS

Because the Court previously set forth the facts and procedural history in its Order

Denying Plaintiff American Honda Motor Co., Inc’s (“Honda”) Motion to Dismiss, it shall not

repeat them here. (See Docket No. 40).

Case 3:06-cv-04752-JSW Document 58 Filed 02/26/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

A. Legal Standard on a Motion to Stay.

Having survived Honda’s motion to dismiss, Coast has prevailed in its efforts to keep all

five Honda patents at issue in this suit. Coast now seeks to stay the proceedings pending

resolution of the International Trade Court (“ITC”) proceedings that Honda initiated against

Coasts’s supplier, Wuxi Kipor Power Co., Ltd. (“Kipor”). 

In some circumstances, a court must stay a civil action in favor of ITC proceedings. See

28 U.S.C. § 1659(a). That statute does not apply in this case, however, because Coast is not a

party to the ITC proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a). Although that statute does not apply,

“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 (1936). “The exertion of this power

calls for the exercise of a sound discretion.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.

1962). Accordingly, it is within this Court’s discretion to determine whether a stay is

warranted.

Some of the competing interests that a district court must weigh in deciding whether to

grant a stay include: (1) “possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay,” (2)

“the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” and (3)

“the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues,

proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, 300 F.2d at

268 (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55). Finally, Coast bears the burden of proving that a stay

is warranted. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255).

B. Honda May Suffer Harm if the Litigation is Delayed.

Coast argues that a stay will not irreparably harm Honda because Coast is no longer

importing or selling any allegedly infringing products. Honda, however, asserts that any

potential future infringement causes it irreparable harm because of loss of goodwill and the

erosion of market share. 

In support of its argument, Coast relies on the CMAX case, where the district court

stayed the litigation pending resolution of a Civil Aeronautics Board proceeding. 300 F.2d at

Case 3:06-cv-04752-JSW Document 58 Filed 02/26/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

266. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed and held that the possibility of delayed money

damages from CMAX’s claim of underpayment was not sufficient irreparable harm to overturn

the stay entered by the district court. Id. at 269-70. In this case, however, Honda maintains that

Coast is infringing its patents and seeks injunctive relief. Because it is not clear to the Court

that only money damages are at issue, the Court concludes that Coast has not met its burden to

show Honda would not be harmed if the litigation is delayed.

C. Coast Has Not Shown Sufficient Hardship to Justify Staying This Proceeding.

Coast argues that it will suffer great hardship and inconvenience because of duplicative

discovery requests from Honda in the ITC proceeding and in this lawsuit. (Coast’s Mot. at 6-7.) 

Coast “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward, if

there is even a fair possibility that the stay ... will work damage to someone else.” Landis, 299

U.S. at 255. However, the hardship attendant with being forced to defend a lawsuit is irrelevant

when considering whether to grant a stay. See Lockyer v. Mirant, 398 F.3d 1098, 1112 (9th Cir.

2005) (“[B]eing required to defend a suit, without more, does not constitute a ‘clear case of

hardship or inequity’ within the meaning of Landis.”). Because Coast offers no other facts

showing hardship, Coast has not met its burden of showing a stay is warranted.

D. A Stay Does Not Further the Orderly Course of Justice.

Coast also argues that staying these proceedings until the ITC proceeding is resolved

will promote efficiency for this Court. As Coast concedes, however, ITC rulings are not

binding on this Court. See Tex. Instruments, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 90 F.3d

1558, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Rather, this Court “can attribute whatever persuasive value to the

prior ITC decision that it considers justified.” Id. This suit involves five patents regarding

engines and engine parts. While the ITC proceeding will potentially involve the same products

as the current suit, the patents relate to different portions and pieces of the engine in the

allegedly infringing products. (Honda Opp. at 7.) As a result, the ITC’s interpretation of the

‘273 and ‘769 Patents will not necessarily inform this Court about the three additional patents. 

Further, any rulings regarding the other three patents will not be binding on this Court. 

Case 3:06-cv-04752-JSW Document 58 Filed 02/26/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

Accordingly, the Court finds that the ITC proceeding will not help narrow any significant issues

for this Court

Moreover, the ITC proceeding, is estimated to be resolved by December 2007, well

before any trial date is set in this suit. As a result, the ITC proceeding record can be reviewed

and considered by this Court and given whatever persuasive value it deems is justified. See

Cypress, 90 F.3d at 1569. Pragmatically, staying the proceedings until completion of the ITC

proceeding does not help narrow the issues for this Court or promote the orderly course of

justice.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly for the reasons set forth herein, Coast’s motion to stay is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-04752-JSW Document 58 Filed 02/26/07 Page 4 of 4