Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Lattice Semiconductor Corp.
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 29 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/3/2015. (aer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG,
Civil Action No. 14-1375-LPS-CJB
LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.,
Before the Court is a motion to stay the proceedings in the instant patent
infringement case, filed by Defendant Lattice Semiconductor Corp. ("Defendant" or "Lattice").
(DJ. 29) Defendant seeks a stay of this case pending resolution of its motions to dismiss (DJ. 8)
or its motion to transfer this action to the Northern District of California (D.I. 16).
A court has discretionary authority to grant a motion to stay. See Cost Bros., Inc.
v. Travelers Indem. Co., 760 F.2d 58, 60 (3d Cir. 1985). This Court has typically considered
three factors when deciding a motion to stay: (1) whether granting the stay will simplify the
issues for trial; (2) the status of the litigation, particularly whether discovery is complete and a
trial date has been set; and (3) whether a stay would cause the non-movant to suffer undue
prejudice from any delay, or allow the movant to gain a clear tactical advantage. See, e.g.,
Cooper Notification, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., Civ. No. 09-865-LPS, 2010 WL 5149351, at *1 (D.
Del. Dec. 13, 2010).
After taking into account the three stay-related factors set forth above, as well as
the particular circumstances of this case, the Court will DENY Defendant's motion, with leave to
renew. The Court determines that this course is appropriate here for the three reasons set forth
First, the Court expects to resolve Defendant's motion to transfer in the near
future, along with similar motions seeking transfer that have been filed by the defendants in two
related cases. 1 At the time it issues those decisions, the Court will address the stay issue again
with the parties. If the Court determines that the instant case should be transferred, it expects to
stay the case at that time. In the meantime, all that has occurred pursuant to the Scheduling
Order in the case is that the parties have made some basic initial disclosures. (See, e.g., D.I. 32 at
7(a)-(b)) The Court's decision on the motion to transfer will come well before Defendant is
required to provide more substantive contentions, (see id.
7(d)), and so the Court does not
find Defendant's simplification-related arguments (D.I. 30 at 5-6) persuasive for the time being.
Second, resolving the motion to stay in this way will permit the three related cases
to proceed on the same schedule until, at a minimum, the venue issue is addressed. (D.I. 33 at 7
(citing St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants, Inc. v. Fujifilm Holdings Corp., Civil Action No.
08-373-JJF-LPS, 2009 WL 192457, at *2 (D. Del. Jan. 27, 2009)) The defendants in the other
two related cases have not filed motions to stay, and there is some efficiency-related benefit (at
least for now) to having all three cases move forward on the same path.
Third, the Court does not see this outcome as occasioning significant prejudice to
For these reasons, the motion to stay is DENIED without prejudice to renew.
Upon resolution of Defendant's motion to transfer, the Court will address the stay issue anew
The related cases are Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Xilinx Inc., Civil
Action No. 14-1376-LPS-CJB (D. Del.) and Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Altera Corp.,
Civil Action No. 15-162-LPS-CJB (D. Del.).
with the parties.
Dated: August 3, 2015
Christopher J. Burke
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?