`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`In re: SAND REVOLUTION LLC, SAND
`REVOLUTION II, LLC,
`Petitioners
`______________________
`
`2020-145
`______________________
`
`On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
`District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 7:18-
`cv-00147-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.
`______________________
`
`ON PETITION
`______________________
`
`Before REYNA, WALLACH, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
`REYNA, Circuit Judge.
`
`O R D E R
`In this patent infringement suit, the United States Dis-
`
`trict Court for the Western District of Texas denied Sand
`Revolution LLC and Sand Revolution II, LLC’s (collec-
`tively, “Sand”) motion to stay the litigation pending a re-
`cently-instituted inter partes review of the same patent in
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Sand now
`petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the district
`court to vacate that order and to stay proceedings pending
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`Case: 20-145 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 09/28/2020
`
`2
`
`
`
`IN RE: SAND REVOLUTION LLC
`
`such review. Continental Intermodal Group – Trucking
`LLC opposes.
`
`Continental brought this patent suit in August 2018,
`seeking damages and injunctive relief against Sand, which
`Continental says is its direct competitor in the market for
`proppant storage and distribution systems.
`After the district court denied Sand’s motion to dismiss
`the complaint for failure to state a claim and issued its
`claim construction order, Sand filed a petition for inter
`partes review of the asserted claims. In February 2020, the
`Patent Office denied Sand’s petition, but on rehearing, the
`Patent Office agreed on June 16, 2020 to institute review
`on the grounds that the trial date had been pushed back
`and Sand stipulated not to pursue the same invalidity
`grounds in the civil litigation.
`On July 21, 2020, Sand moved to stay the litigation
`pending the inter partes review. The district court denied
`that motion, citing as a basis for its decision, among other
`reasons, that “staying the case would only further delay its
`resolution,” “[d]enying the stay would allow the Parties to
`obtain a more timely and complete resolution of infringe-
`ment, invalidity, and damages issues,” and “Plaintiff op-
`poses the stay.” Pet. at Appx14.
` Mandamus is “reserved for extraordinary situations.”
`Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S.
`271, 289 (1988) (citation omitted). Under the well-estab-
`lished standard for obtaining relief by way of mandamus,
`the petitioner must: (1) show that it has a clear and indis-
`putable legal right; (2) show it does not have any other
`method of obtaining relief; and (3) convince the court that
`the “writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Cheney
`v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004)
`(citation omitted).
`
`Sand has failed to satisfy this exacting standard. The
`district court’s ruling was cursory and this court could have
`
`Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`Case: 20-145 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 09/28/2020
`
`IN RE: SAND REVOLUTION LLC
`
` 3
`
`benefited from further elaboration based on the traditional
`stay factors. Nevertheless, we are unable to say that the
`district court clearly overstepped its authority or that Sand
`has shown a clear and indisputable right to a stay under
`the circumstances presented. Moreover, Sand has not
`shown that it is irreparably harmed by having to face the
`burden and expense of going through the district court lit-
`igation. Cf. In re Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 516 F.3d 1003,
`1004 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (petitioner’s “hardship [and] incon-
`venience” in going through trial did not provide a basis for
`granting mandamus (citation omitted)).
`
`Accordingly,
`
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`
`The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
`FOR THE COURT
`
`
`
` September 28, 2020
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Date
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`
`
`s32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 3
`
`
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
