Free Order on Motion for Sanctions - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00305-SLR Document 522 Filed 11/08/2006 Page1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MONSANTO COMPANY, et al., )
Plaintiffs, )
v. ) Civ. No. 04-305-SLR
SYNGENTA SEEDS, INC., et al., )
Defendants. )
O R D E R
At Wilmington this 8th day of November, 2006, having
reviewed various pending motions and the papers submitted in
connection therewith;
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Syngenta's motion for leave to amend the second amended
complaint (D.I. 491), in order to withdraw the allegations
contained in paragraph 133 and count III of said complaint, is
granted.
2. Monsanto’s motion to dismiss with prejudice the
allegations contained in paragraph 133 and count III of
Syngenta's second amended complaint (D.I. 486) is denied as moot.
3. Monsanto’s motion to stay the trial in the antitrust
action pending resolution of Monsanto's patent claims on appeal
(D.I. 488) is granted, for the reasons that follow:

Case 1:04-cv-00305-SLR Document 522 Filed 11/08/2006 Page 2 of 3
a. Monsanto and Syngenta have been arguing about the
inter-relatedness of Monsanto’s patent claims and Syngenta's
antitrust claims since the latter claims were filed. Indeed, the
parties have argued both sides of the factual dispute depending
upon the legal context at issue (e.g., a motion to stay versus a
motion for Rule 54(b) certification).
b. The question of whether to stay the antitrust case
pending appeal is committed to the discretion of the court and
ultimately should be resolved in favor of the “choice most likely
to result in a just final disposition of the litigation.” ;n_;g
Innotron Diagnostics, 800 F.2d 1077, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
c. Despite the contentious nature of this litigation,
it is undisputed that there is at least a minimal overlap between
the patent case and the antitrust case; therefore, the outcome of
the patent appeal necessarily will affect the complexion of the
antitrust case to some extent. Having granted Monsanto’s Rule
54(b) motion, the court concludes that the better course of
action is to stay the trial of the antitrust case until the
appeal of the patent case has been resolved.
d. The pending motions (D.I. 415, 499, 501, 503) are
denied without prejudice to renew. Further, the court will try
the patent and antitrust cases during the same period of time,
2

Case 1:04-cv—00305—SLR Document 522 Filed 11/08/2006 Page 3 of 3
should Monsanto prevail on appeal.l
United Statgs District Judge
1This means that trial of the patent issues will await my
resolving whatever motions are renewed in the antitrust case.
3

Case 1:04-cv-00305-SLR

Document 522

Filed 11/08/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00305-SLR

Document 522

Filed 11/08/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00305-SLR

Document 522

Filed 11/08/2006

Page 3 of 3