Institution of IPR For One of Two Asserted Patents No Basis for Stay

The court denied defendants' motion for a continued stay pending inter partes review after the PTAB instituted review of only one patent-in-suit. "The [granted] petition only addresses three out of the eleven asserted claims in the case, therefore there is no reason to allow the remaining claims to 'languish' unresolved during the IPR process. Further, the claim terms in the [patent under review] will not significantly assist the Court in interpreting the [other patent-in-suit]. . . . Even with the delay of waiting for the PTAB’s institution decision, this case can still go to trial by the end of the year, resolving all of Plaintiff’s claims well before the PTAB makes a final determination on the [patent under review]. Especially since Defendants are not even parties to the IPR petitions, and are not estopped from bringing the same arguments, the Court finds that fairness weighs in favor of Plaintiff to resolve its claims in this forum."

The Tire Hanger Corporation v. My Car Guy Concierge Services Inc. d/b/a Hoist Hanger et al, 5-14-cv-00549 (CACD June 16, 2015, Order) (Wright, J.)