Judge Fallon today rejected a motion to stay in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., C.A. No. 18-217-JFB-SRF (D. Del.), where the defendants tried to rely on COVID-19 opinions as precedent to support a further stay of the August 2021 jury trial.
Defendants tried to argue that the current trial date is tentative and COVID-19 uncertainty supports a further stay:
Although discovery is complete, the trial date is merely tentative and “subject to courtroom availability and the priority of other trials previously scheduled ahead of it.” . . . Moreover, as the Court observed in American Axle, “the ongoing impact of the coronavirus pandemic would render it imprudent to set a trial date at this time.” 2021 WL 616992, at *2; Brit. Telecomms. PLC v. IAC/InterActiveCorp, C.A. No. 18-366-WCB, 2020 WL 5517283, at *5 (D. Del. Sept. 11, 2020) (“[I]n light of the COVID-19 pandemic, it seems highly unlikely that the present schedule will hold. . . . And once trials resume, the district court will be faced with the challenge of dealing with the backlog of civil cases that has built up . . . .”); Order at 3, Pact XPP Schweiz AG v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 19-1006-JDW, D.I. 277 (D. Del. Nov. 5, 2020) (Ex. 1) (“The Court is also mindful of challenges it and the Parties face due to Covid-19 and corresponding restrictions. If this case were to proceed on its current schedule, the trial would likely be subject to significant delays.”).
Magistrate Judge Fallon rejected this argument outright:
Pursuant to the court's April 5, 2021 Notice, the suspension of civil jury trials has expired, and jury trials have resumed in this district. Therefore, Hologic's reliance on cases citing the Covid-19 pandemic as a reason to delay the case schedule are no longer applicable. This factor weighs against a stay.
The Court denied the stay, and the jury trial should go forward in August.
This case is related to but different from Hologic, Inc. et al. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., C.A. No. 20-295-SRF (D. Del. Apr. 22, 2021), in which the Court recently granted a stay pending a related Supreme Court appeal. Here, the parties are on opposite sides and different patents are at issue.
Interestingly, the defendants also argued that the plaintiff's voluntary stay of proceedings at the height of the pandemic showed a lack of prejudice for further stays. The Court's opinion did not explicitly address that point (it may have been disposed of at oral argument), but found that plaintiff would be prejudiced.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
