A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware

There's a couple themes we hit pretty often here on IP/DE. I assume by now that our regular readers (IPDEs? IPDorks?) know that it's hard to redact a transcript, that its easy to get a stay, and that Wilmington chickens have to sleep indoors.

You try and get him outside
You try and get him outside AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Basic legal stuff.

As is often the case, these general principles can only be stretched so far. Such was the lesson of Monterey Res., LLC v. Nanya Tech. Corp., C.A. No. 19-2090-NIQ (D. Del. May 10, 2023) (Order), in which a motion to stay went just a bit too far.

Evident from the C.A. No., this case was pretty old, and had already been stayed once pending IPR's on 4 of the 6 patents-in-suit. A few of the IPRs succeeded but the case continued on the remaining patents this last January with some discovery taking place and Markman briefs being exchanged.

Pretty standard so far.

The twist is that the Defendant then requested EPRs for 2 of the 4 remaining patents and moved to stay the case again. This proved to be a bridge too far:

Here, this matter is in the middle stage of discovery, though the parties have also filed claim construction briefs. This matter, however, has been pending since November 4, 2019, and has already been stayed for more than 19 months to allow the IPR proceedings to play out. These circumstances do not favor a second stay.

Monterey Res., LLC v. Nanya Tech. Corp., C.A. No. 19-2090-NIQ (D. Del. May 10, 2023) (Order)

As a little aside, this order gave me a bit of nostalgia for my early days in Delaware. I used to see a great many orders where 80% of the text was in footnotes explaining the reasoning, but it seems to have fallen out of fashion in DE over the last couple years. I find that I miss it a bit.

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.


Similar Posts