Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Procedural posture

The order addresses defendants’ request for leave to file a motion to stay. A stay would pause the federal case. The request concerned inter partes review proceedings—patent-validity reviews before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board—concerning U.S. Patent Nos. 9,436,354 and 8,370,393.

The court’s action

The court granted defendants leave to file the motion to stay. It set October 23, 2020, as the deadline for defendants to file the motion; November 13, 2020, for Kannuu’s response; and November 20, 2020, for defendants’ reply. The court also directed the clerk to terminate the motion identified as Document 45.

The order did not grant or deny a stay. It only authorized defendants to file the motion and established a briefing schedule. It also did not decide the parties’ underlying patent or contract disputes.

Kannuu’s response

In the letter included with the order, Kannuu argued that the request was premature because Kannuu had received permission to seek an injunction barring Samsung from participating in the two patent reviews. Kannuu further argued that a stay would not resolve the entire case because the Patent Trial and Appeal Board had declined to institute review concerning three other patents and because the case also included a breach-of-contract claim.

Kannuu also argued that a stay would cause delay and prejudice by limiting its access to discovery concerning Samsung’s alleged copying. These statements describe Kannuu’s position; the order does not rule on them.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted defendants leave to file a motion to stay and set the stated deadlines. The opinion text does not state a later ruling on whether the case would actually be stayed.