IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE LAURA PERRYMAN, § § No. 302, 2023 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Court of Chancery § of the State of Delaware v. § § C.A. No. 2019-1003 STIMWAVE TECHNOLOGIES § INCORPORATED, § § Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. § Submitted: September 13, 2023 Decided: October 20, 2023 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; LEGROW and GRIFFITHS, Justices.

ORDER After consideration of the notice of interlocutory appeal, the supplemental notice of interlocutory appeal, and their exhibits, it appears to the Court that: (1) On August 23, 2023, the appellant, Laura Perryman, filed a notice of an interlocutory appeal from the Court of Chancery’s August 14, 2023 order declining to stay the underlying proceedings (the “Order”). The Court of Chancery denied Perryman’s application the next day, finding that the Order did not determine an issue of material importance and that none of the Supreme Court Rule 42(b)(iii) factors supported interlocutory review. On September 13, 2023, Perryman filed a supplemental notice of appeal, to which she attached the Order and the Court of Chancery’s order denying her application for the certification of an interlocutory appeal.1 (2) We agree with the Court of Chancery that interlocutory review is unwarranted in this case: the Order did not decide an issue of material importance and none of the Rule 42(b)(iii) factors weigh in favor of certification.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths Justice

Perryman failed to attach other necessary documents to the notice (or supplemental notice) of appeal—that is, her application for certification or Curonix’s response—as required by Rule 42(d)(iv).