Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 230-5 Filed 01/13/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID
`#: 6082
`
`EXHIBIT E
`
`
`#: 6082
`
`EXHIBIT E
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 230-5 Filed 01/13/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID
`#: 6083
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 23-758 (JLH)
`
`)
`
`))
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`ORCA SECURITY LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff and
` Counterclaim-Defendant,
`
`v.
`
`WIZ, INC.,
`
`Defendant and
` Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
`
`STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR
`STAY PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the parties, subject to the approval of
`
`the Court, that:
`
`WHEREAS, Orca Security Ltd. (“Orca”) has alleged that Wiz infringes U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`11,663,031, 11,664,032, 11,693,685, 11,726,809, 11,740,926, and 11,775,325 (collectively, the
`
`“Orca Asserted Patents”);
`
`WHEREAS, Wiz filed petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) with the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (“PTAB”) against the ’031, ’032, and ’685 patents on May 24, 2024; against the
`
`’809 patent on July 1, 2024; against the ’926 patent on July 31, 2024; and against the ’326 patent
`
`on August 7, 2024 (collectively, the “Wiz IPRs”);
`
`WHEREAS, the PTAB instituted IPRs of the ’031, ’032, and ’685 patents on December 9,
`
`2024, and institution decisions on Wiz’s petitions for IPRs of the ’809, ’926, and ’326 patents are
`
`expected by January 18, February 15, and February 19, 2025, respectively;
`
`WHEREAS, the parties met and conferred and agree that a stay of this case is appropriate
`
`under the present circumstances;
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 230-5 Filed 01/13/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID
`#: 6084
`
`WHEREAS, each party wishes to preserve its ability to seek to lift the stay at any time,
`
`recognizing the Court’s inherent authority to act on any such motion at its discretion;
`
`WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to toll discovery obligations, which does not impact
`
`this Court’s current Rule 16 Order, pending a ruling on this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order;
`
`NOW THEREFORE it is the Order of the Court that:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Scheduling Order (D.I. 33) and all outstanding deadlines are vacated;
`
`This case is stayed as to all claims asserted by either party pending the issuance of
`
`institution decisions on Wiz’s petitions for IPRs of the ’809, ’926, and ’326 patents; and
`
`furthermore:
`
`a.
`
`If institution is denied on one or more of Wiz’s petitions for IPRs of the
`
`’809, ’926, and ’326 patents, then within 10 days of the last institution
`
`decision, the parties shall meet and confer and jointly file a status report
`
`explaining how they propose proceeding in light of the PTAB’s decisions.
`
`b.
`
`If IPRs are instituted on all Orca Asserted Patents, the case shall be stayed
`
`pending a final written decision in each of the respective IPR proceedings.
`
`The parties shall jointly notify the Court within five (5) business days of the
`
`final written decision in each IPR. And, within 10 business days of the
`
`issuance of a final written decision in the last of the IPRs to resolve, the
`
`parties shall jointly file a status report explaining how they propose
`
`proceeding in light of the PTAB’s decisions.
`
`c.
`
`If the parties cannot agree on how to proceed when either of the above-
`
`discussed status reports is submitted, they shall request a conference with
`
`the Court.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 230-5 Filed 01/13/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID
`#: 6085
`
`3.
`
`Pending further Order of this Court, all discovery obligations are stayed, and no
`
`party shall take any action the sole purpose of which is to advance this litigation other than in
`
`relation to the IPR proceedings and/or moving to lift the stay, provided however, that the parties
`
`may pursue procedures to facilitate the disclosure of information produced in this case in the Wiz
`
`IPRs without violating the stay. With regard to any discovery requests that are pending as of the
`
`date of this stipulation and order, subject to any Court Order entered after or when the stay is lifted,
`
`the responding party shall have thirty (30) days to respond from the date the stay is lifted;
`
`4.
`
`After conferring with opposing counsel, any party may move to lift the stay at any
`
`time, recognizing the Court’s inherent authority to act on any such motion at its discretion; and
`
`5.
`
`Any and all statutes of limitations, whether arising by contract, statute, common
`
`law or otherwise, that relate to claims either party has or may have against the other and which
`
`could otherwise be brought in this action but for the stay are tolled for the duration of the stay.
`
`6.
`
`Any damages for the claims and counterclaims in this action shall continue to
`
`accrue during the stay to the full extent permitted by law.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 230-5 Filed 01/13/25 Page 5 of 5 PageID
`#: 6086
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT &TUNNELL LLP
`
`RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
`
`/s/
`___________________________________
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Rodger D. Smith II (#3778)
`Cameron P. Clark (#6647)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`rsmith@morrisnichols.com
`cclark@morrisnichols.com
`
`/s/
`
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Kelly E. Farnan (#4395)
`Christine D. Haynes (#4697)
`One Rodney Square
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`cottrell@rlf.com
`farnan@rlf.com
`haynes@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-
`Defendant Orca Security Ltd.
`
`Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim-
`Plaintiff Wiz, Inc
`
`Dated: December 26, 2024
`
`SO ORDERED, this ___ day of December, 2024.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`4
`
`
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
