IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

SAFE STORAGE LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
DELL INC.,
Defendant.
SAFE STORAGE LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOT HILL SYSTEMS CORP.,
Defendant.
SAFE STORAGE LLC,

v.
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY and
3PAR, INC.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff,
v.
HITACHI DATA SYSTEMS
CORPORATION,
Defendant.

Civil Action No. 12-1624-GMS

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 12-1625-GMS

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

SAFE STORAGE LLC,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 12-1626-GMS

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 12-1627-GMS

SAFE STORAGE LLC,

Plaintiff,
v.
NETAPP, INC.,
Defendant.
SAFE STORAGE LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
SILICON GRAPHICS INTERNATIONAL
CORP.,
Defendant.
SAFE STORAGE LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant.
SAFE STORAGE LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
VMWARE INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 12-1628-GMS

Civil Action No. 12-1629-GMS

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 13-926-GMS

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 13-928-GMS

SAFE STORAGE LLC,

Plaintiff,
v.
INFORTREND CORPORATION,
Defendant.
SAFE STORAGE LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
NEXSAN CORPORATION,
Defendant.
SAFE STORAGE LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
OVERLAND STORAGE, INC.,
Defendant.
SAFE STORAGE LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 13-929-GMS

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 13-931-GMS

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 13-932-GMS

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 13-1089-GMS

SAFE STORAGE LLC,

Plaintiff,
v.
ATTO TECHNOLOGY, INC., HUAWEI
TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., HUAWEI
TECHNOLOGIES USA INC. and HUAWEI
ENTERPRISE USA INC.,
Defendants.
SAFE STORAGE LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
EMULEX CORPORATION (OF
DELAWARE) and EMULEX
CORPORATION (OF CALIFORNIA),
Defendants.
SAFE STORAGE LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORP.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 13-1090-GMS

Civil Action No. 13-1150-GMS

Civil Action No. 13-1151-GMS

ORDER
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2015 the court stayed the above-captioned cases pending
resolution of six petitions for inter partes review ("IPR") by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
("PTAB") of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346 ("the '346 Patent");
WHEREAS, the PTAB has issued two Final Written Decisions affirming the patentability
of all claims in petition IPR 2013-00635 and consolidated petitions IPR 2014-00901 and IPR 201400949, and the relevant defendants have filed or intend to file appeals to the Federal Circuit on the
basis of the PTAB' s construction of the term "RAID";
WHEREAS, presently before the court is the plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay Following Inter

Partes Review;
WHEREAS, the court having considered the parties' positions as set forth in their papers,
as well as the applicable law;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay is DENIED; 1

1
The same principles that applied to the original grant of a stay apply to the court's decision today. It is well
established that the decision to stay an action lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg,
849 F.2d 1422, 1426-27 (Fed. Cir. 1988); CostBros. Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 760 F.2d 58, 60 (3d Cir. 1985);
First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. MacLaren, L.L.C., No. 10-363-GMS, 2012 WL 769601, at *4 (D. Del. Mar. 9, 2012).
Central to the rationale providing for such discretion is that of the "court's inherent power to conserve judicial
resources by controlling its own docket." Cost Bros. Inc., 760 F.2d at 60-61 (citation omitted); see also Cheyney State
Coll. Faculty v. Hufstedler, 703 F.2d 732, 737-38 (3d Cir. 1983) (citing Landis v. N Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55
(1936)).
In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the court is tasked with assessing the following factors: "(1)
whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party; (2) whether a
stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case; and (3) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial
date has been set." First Am. Title Ins. Co., 2012 WL 769601, at *4 (quoting Xerox Corp. v. 3 Comm. Corp., 69 F.
Supp. 2d 404, 406 (W.D.N.Y. 1999)).
None of these factors weigh in favor of lifting the stay at this time. First, Safe Storage has not established
that a continued stay would cause undue prejudice or tactical disadvantage. As a non-practicing entity, the plaintiff
faces no risk of a competitive disadvantage or eroded market share. A continued delay will not impede its ability to
collect damages if it ultimately prevails in its claims. Statistically, the Federal Circuit likely will rule on the appeals
by the eng of this year. (D.I. 40 at 14.) Second, the Federal Circuit's final adjudication on the IPR appeals will simplify
the issues for trial, as the Federal Circuit may reverse the PTAB on some or all of the claims. Finally, the early stage
of litigation favors entering a stay.

2. Each of the above-captioned cases are STAYED pending resolution of the inter
partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,978,346.

Dated: March

Ji_, 2016