NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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.
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court's discretion, this court has repeatedly denied, in unpublished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-
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 -