Federal Circuit disposition — 26-142

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re LAMBETH MAGNETIC STRUCTURES, LLC,
Petitioner
______________________
2026-142
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in
No. 2:16-cv-00538-CB, Judge Cathy Bissoon.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before PROST, M AYER, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
Lambeth Magnetic Structures, LLC petitions for a writ
of mandamus to direct the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania to vacate its order
staying this patent infringement action pending resolution
of ongoing ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) of the asserted
patent claims. Respondents (collectively, “Seagate”) op-
pose. Lambeth replies. We deny the petition.
In 2016, Lambeth filed this suit accusing Seagate of in-
fringing U.S. Patent No. 7,128,988. Following a trial, a
Case: 26-142 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 07/07/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE LAMBETH MAGNETIC STRUCTURES, LLC 2
jury found that the asserted claims were not invalid and
not infringed. On appeal, this court, in September 2025,
vacated and remanded for a new trial because the judg-
ment rested on an erroneous claim construction.
On remand, Seagate requested EPR and, at the court’s
invitation following failed mediation efforts, moved to stay
the litigation. After the EPR proceedings were instituted
and after considering the traditional factors used to ana-
lyze stay motions, see Murata Mach. USA v. Daifuku Co.,
830 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the district court
granted the motion, noting a stay “could simplify the case
and preserve resources, should the” EPR “modify or elimi-
nate some or all” of the asserted claims and that a stay
“could reduce or even eliminate the considerable resources
necessary to retry the case.” App’x 3–4.
A district court has considerable discretion in deciding
how to manage its docket, including when parallel proceed-
ings involving the same patent claims are before the
United States Patent and Trademark Office. See Murata,
830 F.3d at 1362 (noting that “district courts have broad
discretion to manage their dockets”). On mandamus, we
will not disturb a stay determination absent a clear and
indisputable right to relief. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for
D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). Lambeth has not made
that showing.
The district court recognized that a stay could risk the
availability of live testimony from key witnesses given age
and health concerns but balanced that risk against the ben-
efit that a stay could simplify the litigation. Because the
court found it was likely a stay would reduce the issues or
even spare the parties, the public, and the courts the ex-
pense of a retrial and that a stay would not otherwise un-
duly prejudice Lambeth because it was not competing with
Seagate, the court found that, on balance, a stay was war-
ranted. We are not prepared to disturb that case-specific
determination on limited mandamus review.
Case: 26-142 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 07/07/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE LAMBETH MAGNETIC STRUCTURES, LLC 3
Lambeth argues that Seagate’s delay in filing for EPR
was a clear tactical advantage and thus counsels heavily
against a stay. The district court, however, considered
Lambeth’s arguments and reached the opposite conclusion.
It explained that “given the Federal Circuit’s recent claim
construction decision prompt[ed] Defendants to seek reex-
amination for the first time, the Court does not agree that
the delay is improper or reflective of an attempt to manip-
ulate the process to gain an unfair tactical advantage.”
App’x 3. Lambeth has not shown the district court clearly
and indisputably erred in reaching that conclusion.
Accordingly,
IT IS O RDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
July 7, 2026
Date
FOR THE C OURT
Case: 26-142 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 07/07/2026

-- 3 of 3 --