Stay Pending IPR Prior to Institution Decision Not Premature in light of Estoppel

The court granted defendant's motion to stay pending its petitions for inter partes review because the potential simplification of issues, stage of the case, and lack of undue prejudice favored a stay. "[I]t is likely that a stay will simplify the issues in this case because the vast majority of requests for inter partes review are accepted and in virtually all of the cases in which final written decisions have been issued, the PTO has cancelled some or all of the challenged claims. Although [plaintiff] contends entry of a stay is premature because the PTO has not yet decided to grant the petition for review, it does not point to any deficiencies in [defendant's] petition that might result in rejection of the petition. . . . [T]he case is likely to be streamlined even if no claims are cancelled because of the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e), which will estop [defendant] from asserting that surviving claims are invalid on grounds that were addressed during the inter partes review."

Brixham Solutions Ltd. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., 3-13-cv-00616 (CAND April 28, 2014, Order) (Spero, M.J.)