small-logo
ProfessionalsCapabilitiesInsights & NewsCareersLocations
About UsAlumniOpportunity & InclusionPro BonoCorporate Social Responsibility
Stay Connected:
facebookinstagramlinkedintwitteryoutube
  1. WacoWatch

Blog

Judge Albright Denies Sixth Joint Motion To Stay Pending Settlement After Eight Months of Staying Case Pending Settlement Discussions

  • PDFPDF
    • Email
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    Share this page
  • PDFPDF
    • Email
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    Share this page

Blog

Judge Albright Denies Sixth Joint Motion To Stay Pending Settlement After Eight Months of Staying Case Pending Settlement Discussions

  • PDFPDF
    • Email
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    Share this page

1 Min Read

Authors

Dustin EdwardsTyler Boyce

Related Locations

Houston

Related Topics

Patent Litigation
Motions to Stay

Related Capabilities

Intellectual Property
Patent Litigation

Related Regions

North America

July 26, 2023, 4:00 AM

It is common practice for parties in patent litigation to bring joint motions to stay to finalize terms of settlement when they have reached settlement in principle. These joint motions, which are often serially requested until the parties reach a final settlement agreement, are typically granted by district judges as a matter of course. In Panasonic Holdings Corp. v. Broadcom Corp., Judge Albright showed that these stays have a shelf life in his court.

On July 12, 2023, Judge Albright delivered a text order denying a joint motion to stay pending settlement. Judge Albright noted that he had previously granted five joint motions to stay pending settlement in the case already, which had given the parties nearly eight months to finalize a settlement agreement. Given this length of the stay, Judge Albright held that further stay was “not appropriate in this circumstance.” The takeaway for litigants in front of Judge Albright is that joint motions to stay pending settlement will not be granted indefinitely.

Panasonic Holdings Corp. v. Broadcom Corp., Case No. 6:22-cv-00755-ADA (W.D. Tex. July 11, 2023) (Text Order Denying D.E. 44).

Winston & Strawn Summer Associate Grayson Carnahan contributed to this article.

Related Professionals

Related Professionals

Dustin Edwards

Tyler Boyce

Dustin Edwards

Tyler Boyce

This entry has been created for information and planning purposes. It is not intended to be, nor should it be substituted for, legal advice, which turns on specific facts.

Logo
facebookinstagramlinkedintwitteryoutube

Copyright © 2025. Winston & Strawn LLP

AlumniCorporate Transparency Act Task ForceDEI Compliance Task ForceEqual Rights AmendmentLaw GlossaryThe Oval UpdateWinston MinutePrivacy PolicyCookie PolicyFraud & Scam AlertsNoticesSubscribeAttorney Advertising

We, our service providers, and other third parties use cookies and other analytics, advertising, and tracking technologies on this site. Your information, including personal information and interactions with this site, may be monitored, recorded, or collected through these tools and further used or disclosed by us, our service providers, and authorized third parties. For more details, please visit our privacy policy.