"Although [plaintiff] asserts that facts relating to (1) the development and functionality of the accused products; (2) Defendants’ knowledge of the [plaintiff's patents]; and (3) actions taken in response to learning of the [plaintiff's patents], may either be lost or more difficult to obtain, it has said so in a summary fashion, and has not provided any explanation about why this would be the case. Neither has [plaintiff] stated why these risks are of particular concern here -- as they are inherently present whenever a stay is being considered."
Graywire, LLC v. Ciena Corp. et al., 1-08-cv-02993
(GAND July 17, 2009, Order) (Martin, J.)
"[Plaintiff] maintains that because [defendant] is a larger company, continued infringement by [defendant] will threaten [plaintiff's] ability to remain in business. This contention . . . is unsupported by any specific factual allegations in the record, including affidavits or business records. . . . In the absence of more particularized factual allegations, I find that [plaintiff's] claim of undue prejudice is too conclusory to justify denying the requested stay."
K.G. Motors, Inc. v. Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc., 6-08-cv-06422
(NYWD, July 17, 2009, Order) (Payson, J.)