The opinion of the court was delivered by: James F. Holderman, Chief Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On October 23, 2008, plaintiff Se-Kure Controls, Inc. ("Se-Kure") filed suit against defendants Sennco Solutions, Inc. and Christopher Marszalek (collectively "Sennco"), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. RE37,590 ("'590 Patent"); 5,861,807 ("'807 Patent"); and 7,081,822 ("'822 Patent").
On September 18, 2009, in an unrelated litigation, Se-Kure Controls, Inc. v. Diam USA, Inc. (Case No. 06-C-4857), District Court Judge Ronald Guzman determined that the '590 Patent was invalid as obvious in light of certain prior art references. See Se-Kure Controls, Inc. v. Diam USA, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85478 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 18, 2009). Based on that ruling, Se-Kure has moved to stay this proceeding  pending its appeal of Judge Guzman's determination of the '590 Patent's invalidity for obviousness. Sennco opposes Se-Kure's motion, arguing that this case should proceed on the issues related to the '807 and '822 Patents despite Se-Kure's appeal regarding the '590 Patent. For the reasons explained below, Se-Kure's motion is granted in part. The litigation is stayed with respect to the '590 Patent.
Se-Kure has asserted three patents against Sennco in this litigation: the '590, '807, and '822 Patents. Each of these patents covers a separate component of an anti-theft system. Other than sharing a common assignee, the patents have no legal relationship.
On September 18, 2009, in an unrelated litigation, Se-Kure Controls, Inc. v. Diam USA, Inc. (Case No. 06-C-4857), Judge Guzman determined that certain prior art references rendered the '590 Patent invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See Se-Kure Controls, Inc. v. Diam USA, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85478 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 18, 2009). Se-Kure has moved to stay this entire proceeding  pending the appellate resolution of that invalidity determination. Based on its estimates, Se-Kure anticipates that its appeal before the Federal Circuit will be "fully briefed and ready for oral argument within approximately 7 to 10 months." (Mot. 2.) During the September 29, 2009 hearing on Se-Kure's motion, its counsel informed the court that Se-Kure intended to exhaust all of its appellate avenues, including certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. Consequently, should the court grant Se-Kure's motion, it expects that this dispute will be stayed for at least a year, if not more.*fn1
"[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). "[I]f there is even a fair possibility that the stay . . . will work damage to some one else," the party seeking the stay "must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward." Id. at 255.
In deciding whether such a stay is appropriate, courts consider the following factors: (1) whether a stay will unduly prejudice or tactically disadvantage the non-moving party, (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and streamline the trial, and (3) whether a stay will reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court. Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 08-cv-7231, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49470, at *4 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2009). Based on its consideration of these factors, the court finds that a stay limited to the '590 Patent is appropriate. See SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Pentech,99-cv-4304, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13907, at *34 (E.D. Pa. July 16, 2004) (imposing partial stay limited to the patents involved in pending appeal).
1. Undue Prejudice and Tactical Advantage
According to Se-Kure, its proposed stay will maintain the status quo because Sennco has continued to sell its accused products throughout this litigation. Consequently, Se-Kure contends, Sennco will not be unduly prejudiced by the stay. Sennco, on the other hand, argues that granting Se-Kure's motion and delaying the litigation will harm its business by creating uncertainty over its accused products, particularly with respect to litigation averse customers who are wary of infringement liability. In response, Se-Kure claims that these "cries as to prejudice are unfounded" because Sennco's counsel previously represented to Se-Kure's counsel that he would recommend to his clients that they agree to a stay if Se-Kure would dismiss all claims against defendant Marszalek--a proposal to which the parties ultimately did not agree. (Reply 3.) The court does not find that such a representation amounts to an admission that Sennco will not be prejudiced by the stay. Rather, it merely reflects the type of cost-benefit analysis lawyers frequently engage in when attempting to maximize the results for their clients while minimizing the costs and risks of litigation. On balance, the court finds that the likely prejudice to Sennco's business interests in delaying resolution of Se-Kure's infringement claims related to the '807 and '822 Patents weighs against staying the entire litigation.
2. Simplifying Issues and Streamlining Trial
Se-Kure also contends that staying the litigation "will simply all the issues before the Court" because Sennco has "alleged that the '590 [P]atent is invalid based upon the identical combination of prior art already considered by Judge Guzman in the Diam case." (Mot. 6 (emphasis added).) The court disagrees with Se-Kure on this point. Based on the representation of Se-Kure's counsel at the September 29, 2009 motion hearing, Se-Kure intends to pursue its claims related to the '822 and '807 Patents even if the Federal Circuit affirms Judge Guzman's invalidity determination. Regardless of the outcome on appeal, therefore, at least two of the three asserted patents will remain at issue in this case. While Se-Kure correctly argues that the Federal Circuit's decision will narrow the issues related to the validity of the '590 Patent, it has not explained how that Federal Circuit decision will impact the '807 and '822 Patents. In fact, Se-Kure previously represented to this court that the '590 and '807 Patents "are not formally or legally related." (Dkt. No. 30, Se-Kure's Resp. Sennco's Opening Claim Construction Brief Relative '807 Patent 9.) Thus, the court ...