The “Universal Practice” Applies in Tyler, Too

Judge Kernodle denied the motion to stay pending IPR, noting that the PTAB had not instituted review yet, making the simplification of the issues “purely speculative.”

On the second factor, the stage of the case, the court found that factor weighed in favor of granting a stay, even though the defendant did not file the IPR petitions until approximately four months after the plaintiff filed its complaint, and then waited another three months to file its motion to stay after filing its petitions.  Although the defendant “could have acted more diligently in filing the motion,” the court wrote, it found that the factor still weighed in favor of granting a stay.

The order is lengthy for a pre—institution ruling, and provides a good indication of which cases Judge Kernodle found helpful in the analysis, including the NFC and Trover cases by Judge Bryson.

© 2024 Michael C. Smith. Use limited to individual subscribers. Further distribution prohibited.

This blog does not constitute legal advice. If you’d like to discuss a related legal matter, please contact Michael C. Smith via email or call 903-938-8900.