Coordination is a difficult concept to quantify. It's pretty easy to measure speed or strength or flexibility. But coordination is more domain dependent. As an example, I would bet that I am not the fastest, strongest or tallest lawyer in Delaware -- but I will place $20 on myself in a game of horse against any DE lawyer. I extend this to a game of make it take it to any lawyer over 30 who promises they cannot dunk. DM me for deets.
In the patent law context, coordination is similarly vague. A plaintiff accuses multiple defendants with somewhat different products of infringing the same patents. It makes sense to have discovery all go together, but come trial, things often fall apart a bit as the parties argue over how distinct the cases really are.
Today's case is one of the few I've seen where the Court sua sponte raised the issue of how similar 2 related cases really are. TOT Power Control, S.L. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., C.A. No. 21-1305-MN, D.I. 290 (D. Del. Sep. 29, 2025), was related to a very similar case against Apple that had recently gone to trial and was currently in the midst of the usual JMOL/New trial briefing. Although trial was already scheduled in the Samsung case, Judge Noreika entered an order noting that she was considering staying the trial until the resolution of post-trial briefing in the Apple case.
Samsung agreed, and the plaintiff opposed. Judge Noreika ultimately ordered the stay:
WHEREAS, a significant issue raised pretrial, at trial and on post-trial motions has been Plaintiff’s damages calculations and disclosure of its damages case prior to trial, and similar (if not identical) issues have been raised in the Daubert and summary judgment motions filed in the above-captioned case . . . .
WHEREAS, although the above-captioned case is at a relatively advanced stage, with trial dates set for early 2026, the Court finds that staying this case, at least pending its decision on the post-trial motions in the Apple case, “may very well simplify the issues to be litigated in the instant case[s],” and avoid some of the pitfalls encountered in the Apple case.
WHEREAS, it would be an inefficient use of resources to render duplicative rulings in the instant action and proceed to trial without first disposing of the post-trial briefing in Plaintiff’s suit against Apple, as proceeding without the benefit of the outcome of that briefing would make it difficult for the “[instant action] to proceed in a coordinated fashion . . . . "
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned case is STAYED, pending the Court’s disposition of the post-trial motions in C.A. No. 21-1302-MN. The Court will address the status of the case and the stay after those motions are decided.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
