No Stay Pending IPR Given Coordinated Schedule for Multiple Related Cases

The court denied defendant's motion to stay pending inter partes review because the lack of potential simplification of issues, stage of the case, and undue prejudice to plaintiff weighed against a stay. "[A] stay is not likely to simplify this case or, more importantly, the overall collection of 13 related cases pending in this District, at least some of which involve the same patents-in-suit as the instant matter. . . . [A]ny PTAB proceeding may not be completed [for a year and a half], whereas in this litigation the Court has devoted substantial resources to working out a coordinated schedule (which has been entered today) of the 13 related cases, which includes a motions hearing later this month and a two-day Markman hearing in [ten months]. . . . [T]he purported prejudice to [defendant] of having to litigate in the PTAB and this Court is entirely the result of [defendant's] decision to file the petition for IPR."

Clouding IP LLC v. SAP AG, et al., 1-13-cv-01456 (DED January 21, 2014, Order) (Stark, J.)