In Re OPTICURRENT, LLC, 21-143

Opticurrent sued Power Integrations for patent infringement; the Northern District of California entered final judgment in July 2019 awarding damages and an ongoing royalty.
Execution was initially stayed when Power posted a supersedeas bond equal to 125% of the damages award.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district-court judgment in August 2020.
Power moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to vacate the judgment; the district court denied that motion in February 2021, and Power appealed that denial.
Power then obtained a renewed stay under Rule 62(b) in April 2021 after posting a bond covering 125% of the damages plus 125% of subsequent royalties; the bond stated it would remain effective pending Power’s appeal of the Rule 60(b) determination.
Opticurrent petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus to vacate the district court’s Rule 62(b) stay; the Federal Circuit denied the petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Opticurrent)	Defendant's Argument (Power Integrations)	Held
Whether the district court had authority to stay execution of the final judgment under Rule 62(b) while Power’s appeal is only from a Rule 60(b) denial	Rule 62 (as previously interpreted in Zapata) does not permit staying a final judgment when the only pending appeal challenges a Rule 60 ruling, so the stay was improper	The 2018 version of Rule 62(b) broadly permits a stay after judgment upon provision of a bond; Power’s bond secures collection if the judgment is affirmed, so a stay is authorized	Mandamus denied; court concluded Rule 62(b) authorizes the stay and the bond adequately secures the judgment
Whether mandamus relief is warranted to vacate the stay	Mandamus is appropriate because the district court plainly lacked authority to issue the stay in these circumstances	Mandamus is inappropriate; Opticurrent has not shown the absence of adequate remedies or a clear and indisputable right to relief	Mandamus denied; Opticurrent failed to meet the demanding standard for mandamus (no adequate alternative and a clear, indisputable right)

Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) (mandamus burden: no adequate alternative remedies)
Will v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co., 437 U.S. 655 (1978) (mandamus requires clear and indisputable right)
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (2004) (standards for issuing mandamus relief)
Rachel v. Banana Republic, Inc., 831 F.2d 1503 (9th Cir. 1987) (stay by supersedeas bond ensures ability to collect judgment)
In re Zapata Gulf Marine Corp., 941 F.2d 293 (5th Cir. 1991) (held under the prior Rule 62(d) that a stay must pertain to the judgment on appeal)
Tennant Co. v. Hako Minuteman, Inc., 878 F.2d 1413 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (apply regional-circuit law on non-patent-specific procedural issues)