Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd. v. Blaze Mobile, Inc.

I. BACKGROUND

24 On August 22, 2023, the Court granted Samsung’s motion to stay the case pending the 25 outcome of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)’s Ex Partes Review (“EPR”) of the 26 Patents-in-Suit. Order Granting Mot. to Stay (“Prior Oder”), ECF No. 119. At the time of the 27 Court’s Prior Order, all eight Patents-in-Suit were undergoing EPR. Id. The Court found a stay warranted after considering the stage of the litigation, the likelihood that a stay would simplify the issues, and undue prejudice. Id. at 3. Specifically, the Court found that this case was still at the pleading stage, discovery had not begun, and the Court had not set a schedule for the case; the stay would have likely simplified the case given that Samsung obtained PTO review of all eight Patents-in-Suit; and there was no specific showing of prejudice beyond the delay necessarily inherent in any stay. Id. at 3–5. On September 15, 2023, the Court granted the Parties’ stipulation to permit Samsung to file an amended complaint and Blaze to file an amended answer and counterclaims. Order Granting Stipulation, ECF No. 127. That same day, Samsung filed…