`Case 1:16-cv-00041-CFC Document 377 Filed 07/16/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 15369
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`F’REAL FOODS, LLC and RICH
`PRODUCTS CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`) Civil Action No. 16-41-CFC
`)
`)
`HAMILTON BEACH BRANDS,
`INC. and HERSHEY CREAMERY )
`COMPANY,
`
`) )
`
`) O
`
`RDER
`
`Defendants.
`
`Pending before me is Defendants’ Motion for A Stay of A Permanent
`
`Injunction and Recall. D.I. 313. I issued earlier today an order granting in part
`
`and denying in part Plaintiffs’ motion for a permanent injunction and recall. D.I.
`
`376.
`
`I denied Plaintiffs’ motion insofar as it sought to enjoin sales of Defendants’
`
`BIC3000-DQ blender to Dairy Queen; I granted the motion insofar as it sought to
`
`enjoin sales of and recall Plaintiffs’ MIC2000 blender used connection with
`
`Hershey Creamery Company’s Shake Shop Express program. Defendants seek a
`
`stay of the injunction and recall I granted pending appeal. D.I. 314 at 1.
`
`In deciding whether to exercise their discretion to issue a stay pending an
`
`appeal, courts consider four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a
`
`strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00041-CFC Document 377 Filed 07/16/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 15370
`Case 1:16-cv-00041-CFC Document 377 Filed 07/16/20 Page 2 of 3 PagelD #: 15370
`
`will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will
`
`substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the
`
`public interest lies.” Standard Havens Prod, Inc. v. Gencor Indus, Inc., 897 F.2d
`
`511, 512 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citations omitted).
`
`With regards to the first factor, Defendants argue that they have a strong
`
`likelihood of success on appeal because (1)1 erred in determining that a Japanese
`
`publication was not admissible at trial because it was not publicly available prior
`
`art and (2) Judge Sleet, who previously presided over the case, erred in construing
`
`certain claims of the asserted patents.
`
`I disagree. My evidentiary ruling was
`
`consistent with sworn declarations and briefing filed by Defendants (D.I. 194 at 2;
`
`DJ. 194-2; D.I. 194-3), and will be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.
`
`I am also not persuaded that the extrinsic evidence cited by Defendants in their
`
`motion will cause the Federal Circuit to construe the disputed claim limitations
`
`differently than Judge Sleet did. Accordingly, a stay is not warranted under factor
`
`one.
`
`With regards to the second and third factors, Defendants state only that
`
`“[t]he injunction and recall will force Defendants to lose sales and exit the market
`
`(destroying Hamilton Beach’s relationship with Dairy Queen), and thereby result
`
`in loss of customer goodwill and market share, both of which have been to be
`
`irreparable harms.” D.I. 314 at 8. Because I denied Plaintiffs’ request for an
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00041-CFC Document 377 Filed 07/16/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 15371
`Case 1:16-cv-00041-CFC Document 377 Filed 07/16/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 15371
`
`injunction to enjoin the sales of the BIC-3000-DQ to Dairy Queen, this argument is
`
`moot.
`
`Finally, with reSpect to the fourth factor, I am not persuaded that the public
`
`will be harmed if it is denied access to Shake Shop Express milkshakes.
`
`WHEREFORE, in Wilmington, this Sixteenth day of July in 2020, IT IS
`
`HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for A Stay of A Permanent
`
`Injunction and Recall (D.I. 313) is DENIED.
`
`United States
`
`istrictJ
`
`e
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
