Case 9:22-cv-81726-AHS Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2023 Page 1 of 3
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`CASE NO. 22-81726-CIV-SINGHAL
`
`
`SYSTEM STORMSEAL PTY LTD and
`STORMSEAL USA, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`ABC SUPPLY CO., INC., MULE-HIDE
`PRODUCTS CO., INC., and STRUCTURAL
`WRAP, LLC,
`
`
`Defendants.
`______________________________________/
`ORDER
`
`
`THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Structural Wrap’s Expedited Motion to Stay
`
`Pending Inter Partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,168,484. (DE [57]). For the reasons
`
`set forth below, the Motion is denied.
`
`Courts generally enjoy broad discretion in deciding how best to manage the cases
`
`before it. See Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Georgia, 263 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th
`
`Cir. 2001) (“[A]ccord[ing] district courts broad discretion over the management of pre-trial
`
`activities, including discovery and scheduling.”). Generally, district courts consider three
`
`factors in determining whether to grant a stay pending inter partes review: “(1) whether
`
`the stay will unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving
`
`party; (2) whether the stay will simplify issues in question and trial of the case; and (3)
`
`whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set.” Targus Int'l LLC
`
`v. Grp. III Int'l, Inc., 2021 WL 542675, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2021). Courts, however,
`
`routinely deny stays that are sought before the Patent Trial and Review Board (”PTAB”)
`
`even institutes inter partes review. See, e.g., DataQuill Ltd. v. Blu Prod., Inc., 2020 WL
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2002, Page 1 of 3
`IPR2024-00084
`
`

`

`Case 9:22-cv-81726-AHS Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2023 Page 2 of 3
`
`6135795, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 10, 2020); InVue Sec. Prod. v. Vanguard Prods. Group,
`
`2019 WL 3958272, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2019).
`
`Here, Structural Wrap requests a stay even though the PTAB has yet to institute
`
`inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,168,484 (“‘484 patent”). More importantly, it is
`
`undisputed that a final decision from the PTAB regarding the validity of the ’484 patent
`
`would not come until, at the earliest, May 2025. Discovery is set to end in March 2024
`
`with trial set to being in July 2024. Whether or not the final decision from the PTAB
`
`actually simplifies trial—a point the parties heavily dispute—it is not efficient to stay the
`
`case for eighteen months only to then restart the discovery process. This is especially so
`
`when it appears that Structural Wrap could have filed for inter partes review as early as
`
`eighteen months ago; meaning, we could have already had a final decision from the PTAB
`
`regarding the validity of the ‘484 patent. In reality, granting Structural Wrap’s request for
`
`a stay would mean trial would begin, at the earliest, in 2026. Such an extreme delay is
`
`not warranted under the circumstances.
`
`Relatedly, and contrary to Structural Wrap’s assertions, this case is not in the early
`
`stages of discovery. Though a substantial amount of discovery may be left, a substantial
`
`amount has already been completed. The parties have nearly completed written
`
`discovery, exchanged hundreds of pages of detailed infringement and invalidity
`
`contentions setting out their positions as to their respective patents, and are beginning
`
`fact depositions and expert discovery. Much of that work would likely be wasted if a stay
`
`is granted, as the parties would likely have to update discovery when they stay is lifted.
`
`The Court is not willing to waste all that hard work and effort when the parties are closer
`
`to the finish line than the starting point. Accordingly, it is hereby
`
`
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 2002, Page 2 of 3
`IPR2024-00084
`
`

`

`Case 9:22-cv-81726-AHS Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2023 Page 3 of 3
`
`ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Structural Wrap’s Expedited Motion to Stay
`
`Pending Inter Partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,168,484 (DE [57]) is DENIED. All
`
`pretrial deadlines remain in effect.
`
`
`
`DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 22nd day of
`
`November 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Copies furnished counsel via CM/ECF
`
`
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 2002, Page 3 of 3
`IPR2024-00084
`
`