Defendant’s Joint Defense Agreement With IPR Petitioner Does Not Require Estoppel as Condition of Stay

The court granted defendant's motion to stay pending inter partes review and rejected plaintiff's request that defendant be required to agree to estoppel as a condition of any stay. "[Plaintiff] asserted that 'there is less of a likelihood' that a stay will simplify the issues in this case because [defendant] can raise the same arguments from the IPR proceedings in this case. . . . [Defense] counsel acknowledged the existence of a joint defense agreement [with the IPR petitioner], but represented that [defendant] has 'absolutely no involvement…no involvement in any decision, anything about the IPRs.'. . . '[A]lthough Plaintiff suggests it would be unfair for Defendants to obtain the benefit of IPR proceedings without being bound by the arguments raised therein, it would be more unfair to condition a stay on Defendants being bound by arguments raised in a proceeding over which they have no control.'"

Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. US Bancorp et al, 0-13-cv-02071 (MND August 7, 2014, Order) (Mayeron, M.J.)