MEMORANDUM ORDER

SUE ROBINSON, District Judge.

At Wilmington, this 3rd day of May, 2012, having reviewed the motion to stay filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronic America, Inc. (collectively "Samsung"), and the papers filed in connection therewith;

IT IS ORDERED that said motion (D.I. 20) is denied without prejudice, as follows:

1. Background. Plaintiff Apeldyn Corporation ("Apeldyn") filed a complaint alleging infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 5,347,382 ("the `382 patent") by Samsung on June 30, 2011. (D.I. 1) Samsung was a defendant in a related case, Apeldyn Corp. v. AU Optronics Corp., Civ. No. 08-568-SLR ("the `568 case"). (Civ. No. 08-568, D.I. 1) After an extensive claim construction and summary judgment practice wherein the court denied the parties' motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the `382 patent (id., D.I. 628), and the subsequent denial of the parties' motions for reargument (id., D.I. 653), the parties stipulated to a form of judgment (id., D.I. 665). Apeldyn has appealed the court's decisions to the Federal Circuit. (Id., D.I. 663)

2. A joint proposed Scheduling Order for the present case was entered on December 2, 2011. (D.I. 13) Under the current scheduling order, claim construction briefing begins on October 12, 2012 and discovery ends on February 22, 2013. Dispositive motions are due March 13, 2013; trial is set for August 7, 2013.

3. Standard. Motions to stay invoke the broad discretionary powers of the court. See Dentsply Int'l, Inc. v. Kerr Mfg. Co., 734 F.Supp. 656, 658 (D. Del. 1990) (citing Bechtel Corp. v. Laborers' Int'l Union, 544 F.2d 1207, 1215 (3d Cir. 1976)). The court asks three questions in determining whether to grant a motion to stay:

Enhanced Security Research, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., Civ. No. 09-571, 2010 WL 2573925 at *3 (D. Del. June 25, 2010) (citing St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants v. Sony Corp., Civ. No. 01-557, 2003 WL 25283239, at *1 (D. Del. Jan. 30, 2003)).

4. Discussion. Samsung asks the court to stay this action pending the resolution of the `568 case insofar as a stay would "streamline [the] case, sav[e] substantial party and court resources." (D.I. 21 at 2) In support of its motion, Samsung argues that: (1) Apeldyn will not be prejudiced and Samsung will gain no tactical advantage over Apeldyn by granting a stay; (2) awaiting the Federal Circuit's decision would clarify issues in the case and could dispose of the case entirely; and (3) the case is in its infancy and discovery has not begun. (Id.)

5. Apeldyn responds that the case should not be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. (D.I. 24) Apeldyn argues that: (1) the appeal will not streamline any issues; (2) a motion to stay may prejudice Apeldyn;1 and (3) the stage of the proceedings weighs neither in favor nor against a motion to stay. (Id. at 3, 8, 14)

6. Samsung is not involved with the pending appeal, which presumably will concern the court's decision not to exclude Apeldyn's expert (Civ. No. 08-568, D.I. 625); denial of AUO's motions for summary judgment of invalidity and noninfringement; and granting CMO's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement (id., D.I. 628). The Federal Circuit will also review the court's claim construction de novo. (Id., D.I. 626) Balancing the foregoing, the court will deny Samsung's motion to stay without prejudice to renew once discovery in this case has been completed.

7. Conclusion. For the reasons stated above, Samsung's motion to stay (D.I. 20) is denied without prejudice to renew after the close of discovery.