Seattle Trademark Lawyer

Plaintiffs CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina, CommScope Solutions, Inc., and CommScope Solutions Properties LLC sued defendants Electro Products, Inc., and Daniel Oberholtzer, its owner and president, for allegedly selling counterfeit versions of plaintiffs’ communications patch panels. Communications patch panels are used in settings where accurate data transmission is critical, such as hospitals. Plaintiffs allege they learned of the counterfeit products after they began investigating customer complaints about faulty equipment traceable to defendants.

Defendants allege that a few months after the litigation began, an FBI agent left a business card on Mr. Oberholtzer’s door with a note asking Mr. Oberholtzer to call him “ASAP.” After talking with the agent, Mr. Oberholtzer’s attorney believed his client was being investigated for smuggling or importing the counterfeit communications patch panels, which raised Fifth Amendment concerns. Mr. Oberholtzer then stopped responding to plaintiffs’ discovery requests and moved to stay the civil proceedings until the alleged criminal investigation was resolved. 

On February 12, Western District Judge Ricardo Martinez declined the request. Applying the six-factor test set forth in Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995), the court found:

“Judicial expediency and the court’s ability to manage its caseload … favor denying Defendants’ motion to stay. Although Defendants argue that a criminal proceeding would clarify and streamline the case, the Plaintiffs counter that this lawsuit is not particularly complex, the bulk of discovery has already been conducted, and a subsequent trial would be relatively brief. The Plaintiffs have the more persuasive argument.”

The court also found that “because there is currently no indictment, there is no indication when, if ever, such a parallel criminal proceeding would be available to streamline the instant case. Rather, this case would remain on this Court’s docket for an indeterminant amount of time.” However, “[i]f the circumstances change and an indictment does issue, Defendants may move the Court for a stay of these proceedings at that time.”

The case is captioned as CommScope, Inc. v. Electro Products, Inc., No. 06-0577 (W.D. Wash.).