This month marks the three year anniversary of when Inter Partes
Review ("IPR") proceedings first became available in
September 2012. Since that time, over 3,200 litigants have
petitioned the PTAB for institution of IPR proceedings, typically
as an alternative to litigating the same patent invalidity defenses
in district court.1
Not long after the emergence of IPRs, patent defendants began
filing motions to stay district court proceedings pending the
outcome of the IPR ("Stay Motions"). All Stay Motions are
premised on the same general argument: courts and parties should
avoid expending resources litigating patent claims that may be
found invalid. And, while this basic premise seems logical, Stay
Motions are often met with mixed results. In fact, a survey of the
88 contested Stay Motion opinions issued so far in 2015 reveals a
break-down of only 38 granted (43%) and 42 denied
(48%).2
