Los Angeles Brush Manufacturing Corp. v. James

Background

A brush maker (Los Angeles Brush Manufacturing Corporation) was defending two simple patent lawsuits brought by two different complainants. At a district-court calendar call, the judges referred both cases to Charles C. Montgomery, a standing master, citing a congested docket, many criminal cases that get preference, and the lengthy nature of many patent trials. The defendant objected and asked this Court for leave to file a mandamus petition to require the judge to vacate the reference and put the cases on the open-court trial calendar.

Reasoning

The Court reviewed the sources of its power to regulate equity practice and explained that it can issue mandamus in some circumstances to enforce its rules. It emphasized Equity Rule 46, calling for oral testimony in open court, and Rule 59, saying references to masters must be exceptional. But because the order recited docket congestion and a real shortage of judges in some districts, the Court would not infer a deliberate abuse of discretion here. The Court therefore denied leave to file the petition while making clear it expects district judges to follow the rules and that the Supreme Court will act if the rules are effectively nullified.

Real world impact

The immediate petitions were not granted, so the two cases remain referred for now, but the opinion warns judges against routinely creating standing patent courts that avoid open-court trials. The ruling stresses lower courts should give patent litigants the same opportunity for oral trials and avoid unnecessary expense unless truly exceptional circumstances exist.