`
`Civil Action No. 22-22706-Civ-Scola
`
`
`
`
`United States District Court
`for the
`Southern District of Florida
`
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HMD America, Inc., and others,
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`Order Granting Partial Stay
`This matter is before the Court on the Defendants’ motion for partial stay of
`patent contention and claims construction deadlines.1 (Mot. to Stay, ECF No.
`140.) The Defendants seek a stay of the current patent contention and claims
`construction deadlines in this patent matter relating to an ongoing dispute over
`the sufficiency of the Plaintiff’s patent claims and infringement contentions.
`Plaintiff Bell Northern Research, LLC has responded in opposition to the motion.
`(ECF No. 143.) The Defendants timely replied. (ECF No. 145.) The Court has
`reviewed the briefing, the record, and the relevant legal authorities. For the
`reasons stated below, the Court grants the motion to stay. (ECF No. 140.)
`The Court finds good cause to grant the partial stay and does not find that
`the Plaintiff will be unnecessarily prejudiced by the stay. First, the contentions
`are subject to a dispute that Magistrate Judge Goodman will resolve, pending a
`hearing set for March 15, 2023. Second, the delay in this patent-infringement
`matter will be minimal, and the contentions, and the parties’ responses thereto,
`will frame the resolution of the remainder of the case. It will be most efficient for
`the Defendants to respond to the Plaintiff’s contentions after the Magistrate Judge
`has ruled on the sufficiency of the Plaintiff’s contentions, rather than before.
`Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion to grant the requested stay. See
`Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Ga., 263 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir. 2001)
`(observing that district courts are accorded “broad discretion over the
`management of pre-trial activities, including discovery and scheduling.”
`For the reasons stated above, the Court grants the Defendants’ motion to
`stay. (ECF No. 140.) The Court stays the following deadlines until thirty (30)
`days after Judge Goodman’s ruling on the sufficiency of the Plaintiff’s
`infringement contentions:
`
`
`
`1 Defendant Unisoc Technologies Co., Ltd., does not join the motion because the Court has
`already entered a stay of discovery relating to Unisoc pending Unisoc’s motion to dismiss. (ECF
`No. 136.)
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 148 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/07/2023 Page 2 of 2
`
`Deadline for a party opposing a claim of patent infringement
`or asserting invalidity or unenforceability to serve Non-
`Infringement, Unenforceability, and Invalidity Contentions
`and make accompanying document production.
`
`Deadline to Exchange Proposed Terms for Construction.
`
`
`(Sched. Order, ECF No. 125.) The remaining deadlines stated in the Scheduling
`Order are otherwise unaffected.
`Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on March 7, 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________________________________
`Robert N. Scola, Jr.
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
