Case 2:12-cv-01369-NBF Document 90 Filed 07/24/13 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and PHILIPS
`ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA
`CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`ZOLL LIFECOR CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil No. 12-1369
`Judge Nora Barry Fischer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`
`
`
`Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Philips Electronics
`
`North America Corporation (“Philips”) Motion to Lift Stay, (Docket No. 81), and Brief in
`
`Support, (Docket No. 82), wherein they request the Court to lift a stay imposed on February 6,
`
`2013 (Docket No. 45), now that mediation has been completed. Defendant Zoll Lifecor
`
`Corporation (“Zoll”) opposes, arguing that the interests of efficiency and economy dictate that
`
`the stay remain in place until the completion of a related trial in October in the District of
`
`Massachusetts. (Docket No. 85). Upon consideration of the parties’ positions as outlined in
`
`briefs and oral argument at the motion hearing held by telephone on July 11, 2013, (Docket No.
`
`88), Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay, (Docket No. 81), is GRANTED.
`
`This is a patent infringement action filed on September 21, 2012 accusing Zoll Lifecor of
`
`infringing eight of Philips’ defibrillator patents related to Zoll’s wearable defibrillator, the
`
`LifeVest. (Docket No. 1). There are multiple nationwide lawsuits pending between these parties.
`
`The first case is the “Massachusetts Matter” brought by Philips against Zoll Medical on June 18,
`
`
`
`1
`
`Philips Exhibit 2028
`Zoll Lifecor v. Philips
`IPR2013-00609
`
`Page 1 of 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-01369-NBF Document 90 Filed 07/24/13 Page 2 of 5
`
`2010 in the District of Massachusetts before Judge Gorton. See Philips v. Zoll Medical, No.
`
`1:10-cv-11041-NMG (D. Mass. 2010). This suit asserts patent infringement of eight patents by
`
`Zoll’s automatic external defibrillators, the type usually hung on walls in public places. Five of
`
`the patents in the Massachusetts Matter are also asserted in the instant case. Summary judgment
`
`motions have been filed and the liability phase trial is set to commence on October 7, 2013. (See
`
`Tx. Order of 8/18/11 in Civ. No. 10-11041). A second case was filed against Zoll Medical on
`
`January 5, 2012, in the Western District of Washington and was subsequently transferred to
`
`Judge Gorton in the District of Massachusetts on November 15, 2012. See Philips v. Zoll, No.
`
`2:12-cv-18 (W.D. Wash.); 1:12-cv-12255-NMG (D. Mass. 2012) (“Washington Matter”). The
`
`Washington Matter asserts infringement by Zoll’s “professional” defibrillators, i.e. the kinds
`
`used in hospitals. The Markman hearing in this case is set for March 13, 2014, fact discovery
`
`ends June 30, 2014, expert discovery ends October 15, 2014, and dispositive motions are due by
`
`November 15, 2014. The Court has set a March 2, 2015 trial on liability. Following this trial,
`
`there will be a combined trial on the issues of willfulness and damages for the two Massachusetts
`
`matters. The third litigation is the instant case. The last action is a suit by Zoll Medical against
`
`Philip’s subsidiary Respironics Inc. in the District of Delaware, filed on December 27, 2012,
`
`involving airway machines. See Zoll v. Respironics, No. 12-cv-01778-LPS (D. Del. 2012).
`
`Respironics Inc. has filed a pending Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review of those at issue
`
`patents. (Docket No. 18 at Civ. No. 12-1778 D. De.) As counsel verified “the same two law
`
`firms are representing the parties for all four cases, the two in Massachusetts, the one here, and
`
`the one in Delaware.” (Docket No. 42 at 35).
`
`In light of this multi-front litigation, on February 6, 2013, the Court denied Defendant’s
`
`request for a general stay and ordered the parties to proceed to mediation given this Court’s
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-01369-NBF Document 90 Filed 07/24/13 Page 3 of 5
`
`robust ADR program.1 (Docket No. 45). The matter did not resolve, (Docket No. 53), and the
`
`parties then litigated the propriety of sanctions related to this mediation, which were denied by
`
`Chief Magistrate Judge Lenihan following hearing and argument. (Docket No. 75).
`
`District courts have broad power to stay proceedings, “incidental to the power inherent in
`
`every court to control the disposition of causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for
`
`itself, for counsel and for litigants.” Bechtel Corp. v. Local 215, Laborers’ Int’l Union, 544 F.2d
`
`1207, 1215 (3d Cir. 1976) (quoting Landis v. North Amer. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936));
`
`see also Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v. Thorley Indus., LLC, 858 F. Supp. 2d 461, 463
`
`(W.D. Pa. 2012). In deciding whether to stay litigation in favor of litigation in another federal
`
`court, “the general principle is to avoid duplicative litigation.” Colorado River Water Cons.
`
`Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). As such, “a district court may properly
`
`consider the ‘conservation of judicial resources and comprehensive disposition of litigation,’ and
`
`attempt to avoid duplicating a proceeding already pending in a federal district court.” Complaint
`
`of Bankers Trust Co. v. Chatterjee, 636 F.2d 37, 40 (3d Cir. 1980) (quoting Kerotest Mfg Co. v.
`
`C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183 (1952)). In determining whether a stay is
`
`appropriate, a court must weigh the competing interests of the parties to the litigation and address
`
`whether any party is prejudiced by the stay order. See Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55; Cheyney State
`
`College Faculty v. Hufstedler, 703 F.2d 732, 737-38 (3d Cir. 1983).
`
`Defendant now opposes a stay for the same reasons it argued in its original request for a
`
`stay, mainly due to the Massachusetts trial in October. (Docket Nos. 26, 27). The Court has
`
`
`1
`The Western District of Pennsylvania has a well-regarded Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”)
`Program, governed by its Local Rule of Practice 16.2 that mandates the use of ADR, by either mediation, early
`neutral evaluation and/or arbitration in all civil cases (except social security and those involving prisoners). See
`Local Rule 16.2; Local Patent Rule 1.5; Court’s ADR Policies and Procedures www.pawd.uscourts.gov. In fact, the
`Western District has been selected as one of ten districts to be studied for further study to develop best practices in
`ADR across the federal judiciary.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-01369-NBF Document 90 Filed 07/24/13 Page 4 of 5
`
`already considered those arguments, and rejected Defendant’s request for a general stay.
`
`(Docket No. 45). The Court granted a partial stay in order to send the parties to mediation. (Id.).
`
`To the extent that Defendant asserts that the current progress of the Massachusetts Matter should
`
`serve as the basis for the Court to reevaluate or reconsider its prior ruling, the Court remains un-
`
`persuaded that a general stay of this case is appropriate in light of the legal principles advocated
`
`by the Plaintiff. Instead, the appropriate course is to proceed with this litigation given the fact it
`
`was filed in this Court on September 21, 2012. (Docket No. 1). In weighing the parties ’
`
`interests and possibility of prejudice, the Court is mindful that the parties are in agreement that
`
`regardless of the conclusion reached in the Massachusetts jury trial, this matter will remain.
`
`(Docket No. 89 at 6-9) The products in the Massachusetts Matter are different and 3 of the
`
`patents at issue here are not being litigated in Massachusetts. (Id.). Additionally, this case was
`
`filed nearly a year ago, and the Court has already granted Defendant an eight month partial stay.
`
`(Docket No. 45). As with every case on its docket, the Court is tasked with moving this matter
`
`expeditiously. Bechtel Corp., 544 F.2d at 1215 (3d Cir. 1976).
`
`With these considerations in mind, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift the Stay,
`
`but in doing so, sets a scheduling order cognizant of counsel’s responsibilities to their clients in
`
`other jurisdictions.2 The Court thus delays certain deadlines with the goal of avoiding any
`
`duplicative work for either counsel or this Court. Since Plaintiffs seek to lift the stay, the onus
`
`will fall on their shoulders to bear the risk of undertaking any duplicative work, such as working
`
`on infringement contentions for patents that may be found invalid by the Massachusetts jury trial
`
`setting. In setting forth this schedule, the Court intends to conserve judicial and client resources,
`
`
`2
`The Court is aware that the same counsel working in this matter are currently preparing for this October
`trial and owe both that Court and their clients a duty to control their “work load so that each matter can be handled
`competently.” See Rules of Prof. Conduct, Rule 1.3, 42 Pa. C. S. Rule 1.3 (Comment 2); ABA Model Rules of
`Professional Conduct Rule 1.3 (Comment 2). To that end, Plaintiffs, in requesting the stay to be lifted, have assured
`the Court that they are prepared to work concurrently on this litigation and the other matters. (Docket No. 89 at 18).
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-01369-NBF Document 90 Filed 07/24/13 Page 5 of 5
`
`but also to ensure that this case moves forward “rather than [] languish on the court’s docket
`
`indefinitely.” Int’l Fid. Ins. Co. v. Podlucky, Civ. No. 07-0235, 2007 WL 2752139 (W.D. Pa.
`
`Sept. 18, 2007) (Lancaster, J.)
`
`Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Plaintiffs’ Motion is Granted [81], and the
`
`case will proceed in compliance with the provisions of Local Rule 16 and the Local Patent Rules
`
`as outlined in the order that follows.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: July 24, 2013
`cc/ecf: All counsel of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/Nora Barry Fischer
`Nora Barry Fischer
`U.S. District Court
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 5
`
`