SiOnyx, LLC et al v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. et al

Filing 844

Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER entered. ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF BOND AND STAY OF ENFORCEMNT OF MONETARY PORTION OF THEFINAL JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL (Halley, Taylor)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_______________________________________
)
SIONYX, LLC and PRESIDENT AND
)
FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
HAMAMATSU PHOTONICS K.K. and
)
HAMAMATSU CORPORATION,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

Civil Action No.
15-13488-FDS

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF BOND AND STAY
OF ENFORCEMNT OF MONETARY PORTION OF THE
FINAL JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL
SAYLOR, J.
Defendants Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. and Hamamatsu Corporation have moved for
approval of a supersedeas bond in order to stay the monetary portion of this Court’s final
judgment pending appeal. For the following reasons, the motion will be granted subject to the
filing of proof of bond with the Court.
In an Order dated September 24, 2019, the Court denied defendants’ motion to stay the
final judgment pending appeal. The Court did, however, note that defendants could seek a stay
of the monetary portion of the judgment upon a posting of the appropriate bond. Fed. R. Civ. P.
62(b) provides that “[a]t any time after judgment is entered, a party may obtain a stay by
providing a bond or other security. The stay takes effect when the court approves the bond or
other security and remains in effect for the time specified in the bond or other security.” Local
Rule 62.2 governs the specific requirements of such a bond, dictating that the bond “shall be in

the amount of the judgment plus 10% of the amount to cover interest and any award of damages
for delay plus $500 to cover costs, unless the court directs otherwise.”
Defendants have expressly represented to the Court that they have obtained such a bond
in the amount of $3,442,538.60.1 However, despite reference to proof of this bond in an attached
exhibit, no such proof was actually submitted to the Court. Under the circumstances, the Court
declines to construe what may be an oversight as proof to the contrary. Instead, the Court will
afford defendants the opportunity to file proof of the bond and will grant the motion in the
interim.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Approval of Bond
and Stay of Enforcement of Monetary Portion of the Final Judgment (Docket No. 837) is
GRANTED. Defendants have five days from the entry of this Order to submit actual proof of
the bond. The provisions of paragraphs 1-3 of the Amended Final Judgment and Order are
STAYED pending appeal. This Order shall be vacated if such proof is not timely filed pursuant
to this Order.
So Ordered.

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
United States District Judge

Dated: November 4, 2019

1

This amount is equal to the sum of the original judgment ($3,129,126), 10% of that amount
($312,912.60), and $500 to cover costs.

2