Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-04297
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kannuu v. Samsung, Judge Ramos ordered Kannuu to respond by October 1 to Samsung’s request to seek a case stay.
Kannuu was ordered to respond by the end of October 1, 2020, concerning Samsung’s request for permission to seek a stay of the case. The provided text does not show a ruling affecting the parties’ substantive patent or contract rights.
What happened
Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. concerns Samsung’s request for permission to ask the court to pause the case while patent-review proceedings continue before a federal patent board.
Samsung argued that the review could simplify the patent and contract issues, the case was still at an early stage, and Kannuu would not be harmed by a pause. The provided text does not show that Kannuu responded or state its position.
Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered the plaintiff to respond by the end of October 1, 2020. The order shown did not decide whether to pause the case or grant Samsung permission to file a stay motion.
The detailed version
- Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. · No. 1:19-cv-04297
- Edgardo Ramos
- Sept. 29, 2020
Background
The provided text is a letter from counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., which the letter collectively calls “Samsung.” The letter asks Judge Ramos to allow Samsung to file a motion to stay, or pause, the federal case while the Patent Trial and Appeal Board considers Samsung Electronics America’s petitions for inter partes review of two of the five patents Kannuu asserted. Inter partes review is a proceeding in which the patent board examines whether patent claims are valid.
The letter states that the board had instituted review of the challenged claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 9,436,354 and 8,370,393. Samsung argued that the review could simplify the litigation, that the federal case was at an early stage, and that Kannuu would not be prejudiced by a stay. Samsung also argued that the stay should cover the entire case, including Kannuu’s contract claim, because of overlap between the patent and contract issues. These are Samsung’s arguments in the letter, not findings by the court. The provided text does not show Kannuu’s response or position.
Court’s Action
The court’s endorsement states: “Plaintiff is directed to respond by Thursday, October 1, 2020 end of day.” Judge Edgardo Ramos signed and dated the endorsement September 29, 2020. The provided text does not state that the court granted or denied a stay, or that it granted or denied Samsung leave to move for a stay. Thus, the action shown is an order setting a response deadline, not a decision on the requested pause.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.