Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
ABC IP, LLC and Rare Breed Triggers, Inc. brought patent-infringement actions against manufacturers, importers, distributors, and resellers of products that allegedly infringe their patented forced-reset-trigger technology. In April 2026, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred five cases to the Eastern District of Texas for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in MDL No. 3176, In re: Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation. More than 100 cases were subsequently transferred into the MDL.
More than 30 defendants in 32 member actions, including SKER Industries, LLC and Jordan Linsker, filed motions seeking stays pending final resolution of related infringement actions against the relevant manufacturers. They relied on the customer-suit exception, under which a court may allow litigation against a manufacturer to proceed before related litigation against the manufacturer’s customers, as well as the traditional factors governing stays.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied all 13 pending motions to stay. It explained that the customer-suit exception is discretionary rather than automatic and that efficiency and judicial economy are its guiding principles. Those considerations did not favor stays because the MDL itself was created to coordinate the related cases, eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve party and judicial resources.
The court also found that concerns commonly supporting the customer-suit exception were absent. The proceedings did not present a traditional first-to-file race or a risk of forum shopping, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1 permitted the court to consolidate pleadings, appoint leadership counsel, and otherwise streamline the litigation without staying the customer cases and prolonging the plaintiffs’ pursuit of their claims.
Key Takeaways
- The customer-suit exception permits, but does not require, a court to stay patent claims against customers while related claims against manufacturers proceed.
- Centralized MDL management can reduce the efficiency and judicial-economy rationale for staying customer suits.
- The court concluded that coordinated pleadings, leadership appointments, and other case-management measures could address duplication without delaying the reseller cases.
Why It Matters
The ruling keeps dozens of Rare Breed Triggers member actions moving alongside the related manufacturer cases. It also illustrates that defendants cannot obtain a stay merely by identifying parallel litigation against an upstream manufacturer; they must show that a stay would advance efficiency and judicial economy under the circumstances of the coordinated proceeding.