In re Lambeth Magnetic Structures, LLC

In re Lambeth Magnetic Structures, LLC The Federal Circuit denied Lambeth's mandamus petition, holding Lambeth did not show a clear and indisputable right to relief from the district court's order staying the remanded infringement case pending ex parte reexamination of the asserted claims. The court declined to disturb the district court's case-specific balancing of the stay factors on limited mandamus review. Stays pending reexamination remain squarely within district court discretion and are very hard to overturn by mandamus, even where a stay risks live witness testimony and the reexamination request came late, if the court weighed the factors and explained why. Petition denied. Background: Lambeth sued Seagate in 2016 on U.S. Patent No. 7,128,988; a jury found the asserted claims not invalid and not infringed, and in September 2025 this court vacated and remanded for a new trial because of an erroneous claim construction. On remand, Seagate requested ex parte reexamination and, at the court's invitation after failed mediation, moved to stay. After the reexamination was instituted, the district court applied the traditional stay factors and granted the stay. The district court reasoned that a stay could simplify the case or eliminate some or all asserted claims and could reduce or avoid the considerable resources needed to retry the case. It also found no undue prejudice because Lambeth was not competing with Seagate. The district court acknowledged the risk to live testimony from key witnesses given age and health concerns but weighed it against the simplification benefit. The Federal Circuit would not disturb that case-specific balance on mandamus, citing the Cheney clear-and-indisputable-right standard and the broad docket-management discretion described in Murata. On Lambeth's delay argument, the district court found that Seagate first sought reexamination because of the Federal Circuit's recent claim construction decision, so the delay was not improper or a tactical maneuver. Lambeth did not show clear and indisputable error in that finding. injunction / stay claim construction remand infringement non-precedential