Visiting Judge Murphy decided a stay motion in a patent action yesterday, and included language that could be helpful to any patent plaintiffs who are opposing an early stay.
In Ignite Enterprise Software Solutions, LLC v. NGData, US Inc., C.A. No. 23-1209 (D. Del.), the defendant moved for a 30-day stay after its lead counsel suffered a head injury in a car accident.
The Court moved shockingly fast (for a busy Court), requesting that the plaintiff respond within two days, and then ruling on the motion the same day the plaintiff responded—just two days after the initial paper.
The Court denied the stay due to prejudice to the patentee:
Defendant seeks a 30-day extension and accompanying 30-day stay of all deadlines through claim construction because lead defense counsel has head-injury-related symptoms from a car accident that make it difficult for him to work on the case. Defendant states that by the end of the 30 days, lead counsel expects his symptoms will have abated and he would be able to arrange for additional attorney resources. This seems reasonable, but the problem is that, like in many patent cases, the clock for the 1-year bar for IPRs is running. Any unwilling delay in that first year of litigation works prejudice against a plaintiff because the relative pace of litigation and IPR can affect whether an IPR is instituted, whether a litigation stay is appropriate, and ultimately, the effectiveness of a judgment.
Enterprise Software Solutions, LLC v. NGData, US Inc., C.A. No. 23-1209, D.I. 87 (D. Del. Sept. 25, 2024).
That language looks useful for a patentee opposing other early-case delays as well. The Court also pointed out that the patentee was willing to compromise, but the defendant declined:
Plaintiff is willing to work with defendant on certain discovery deadlines (but not others), and would even agree to the 30-day stay, but only if there is assurance that pencils are down on IPR petition preparation. Defendant declined. Nor did defendant (apparently) offer to waive any request to stay this litigation pending an IPR or waive any arguments at the Patent Office about the pace of litigation.
Id.
The Court also noted that counsel's firm, Fish and Richardson, has hundreds of patent litigators:
We also note that although a client’s choice of counsel is always entitled to respect, lead defense counsel’s law firm’s website currently indicates 232 professionals associated with patent litigation services. We expect plaintiff will take any opportunities it can to extend professional courtesies within the framework of the court schedule.
Id.
The exact circumstances of this request are unclear, and the filings are still sealed. Still, IP/DE sends heartfelt best wishes for a speedy recovery to the injured attorney.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
