Defendants’ Unexplained Delay Filing IPRs Warrants Denial of Litigation Stay

The court denied defendants' motion to stay pending inter partes review and found that the undue prejudice to plaintiff resulting from defendants' delay in filing their petitions weighed against a stay. "Defendants did not file their IPRs expeditiously and are most likely seeking a stay to gain a tactical advantage over [plaintiff]. . . . Defendants filed three IPR petitions on . . . the last day of the '1 year' period under which Defendants were permitted to file IPRs. Defendants offer no reason for filing their IPRs on the last day. As [plaintiff] points out, Defendants identified relevant prior art at least six months before they filed their IPRs, when they served their infringement contentions . . . . Indeed, this case presents a good example of why filing IPRs near the end of the one-year period tends to prejudice the non-moving party. . . . [S]taying the case will delay a resolution on the merits and require [plaintiff] to warehouse discovery results that it diligently worked with third-parties for months to collect."

Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. HTC Corporation et al, 2-14-cv-00690 (TXED June 17, 2016, Order) (Payne, M.J.)