Defendant’s Non-Party Status to IPRs Dooms Stay Request, Despite Agreement to Be Bound by IPR Estoppel

October 20, 2023

Reading Time : 2 min

The Western District of Texas recently denied a defendant’s motion to stay pending inter partes review based in part on the defendant’s status as a non-party in the IPR proceedings. In doing so, the district court focused on how the defendant’s inability to participate in the IPRs limited the scope of estoppel, and therefore diminished any potential simplification of issues.

The plaintiff asserted four patents in separate proceedings against three entities—Zebra Technologies Corporation, Honeywell International Inc. and Bluebird Inc., the defendant in this matter. In response, Zebra filed four petitions for inter partes review challenging each of the asserted patents, and the PTAB instituted all four petitions. But Bluebird did not join these IPRs.

Shortly after the PTAB instituted review, Bluebird moved to stay its case pending final resolution of the IPR proceedings. Zebra also moved to stay its respective matter in light of the instituted IPRs. The district court granted Zebra’s motion to stay but denied Bluebird’s.

In its analysis the court first determined that staying the Bluebird matter would likely inflict undue prejudice on plaintiff because of potential loss of evidence. The court further noted that the proceeding had reached an advanced stage of discovery. Thus, the first two factors slightly weighed against granting a stay. Regarding the third factor, the court recognized there could be a simplification of issues by staying the Bluebird matter until resolution of the IPRs, particularly because Bluebird agreed to be bound by the estoppel provisions under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Therefore, this factor weighed slightly in favor of granting a stay.

Nevertheless, the district court determined that Bluebird’s lack of participation in the IPR proceedings undercuts any potential simplification of the issues, and the court denied Bluebird’s stay request. The court reasoned that, as a non-party, Bluebird had no ability to prevent early termination of the Zebra IPRs. If Zebra and the plaintiff were to settle their dispute and the Zebra IPRs were terminated before the PTAB reached a final written decision, no estoppel would attach to Bluebird. Thus, despite granting the requested stay in the Zebra matter, the court concluded that Bluebird’s status as a non-party to the IPRs diminished the likelihood that resolution of the IPRs would simplify the Bluebird matter and declined to stay the case.

Practice Tip: Although agreeing to be bound by estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) often weighs in favor of granting a stay pending IPR resolution, the true scope of estoppel may be limited when a party does not participate in the IPR proceeding. This potential for a party to escape estoppel could tilt the stay analysis toward denying a stay. Parties on both sides of a stay request should be mindful of this interplay between the scope of estoppel and the simplification factor of a stay analysis, particularly when the party requesting a stay is not a party to the IPR proceeding.

Lone Star SCM Systems, Ltd. v. Bluebird Inc., 6-21-cv-00844 (WDTX Aug. 1, 2023) (Judge Albright)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.