Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 232 Filed 01/15/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
`6092
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`ORCA SECURITY LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 23-758-JLH-SRF
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Plaintiff and
` Counterclaim-Defendant,
`
`
`
`WIZ, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`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, Inc. (“Wiz”) infringes U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 11,663,031, 11,664,032, 11,693,685, 11,726,809, 11,740,926, and 11,775,326
`
`(collectively, the “Orca Asserted Patents”);
`
`WHEREAS, Wiz has alleged that Orca infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 11,722,554, 11,929,896,
`
`11,936,693, 12,001,549 and 12,003,529;
`
`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 21, February 18, and February 19, 2025, respectively;
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 232 Filed 01/15/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
`6093
`
`WHEREAS, the parties met and conferred and agree that a stay of this case is appropriate
`
`under the present circumstances;
`
`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, the parties hereby stipulate and agree, subject to the approval of the
`
`Court, that:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Scheduling Order (D.I. 33, D.I. 90) and all outstanding deadlines are vacated;
`
`This case is stayed as to all claims asserted by either party through final written
`
`decision in each of the Wiz IPRs. 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 meet and confer and jointly
`
`file a status report explaining how they propose proceeding in light of the PTAB’s decisions.
`
`3.
`
`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 on those patents, the parties
`
`shall meet and confer and jointly file a status report explaining how they propose proceeding in
`
`light of the PTAB’s decisions. 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.
`
`4.
`
`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
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 232 Filed 01/15/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
`6094
`
`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;
`
`5.
`
`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
`
`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. This paragraph is not intended to provide
`
`for an accrual of damages other than that provided by law.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 232 Filed 01/15/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
`6095
`
`
`
`
`
`RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
`
`
`/s/ Christine D. Haynes
`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 Defendant and Counterclaim-
`Plaintiff Wiz, Inc
`
`
`
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT &TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Cameron P. Clark
`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
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-
`Defendant Orca Security Ltd.
`
`
`
`Dated: January 15, 2025
`
`SO ORDERED, this ___ day of January, 2025
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`4
`
`
`