1. Insights
  2. Blogs
  3. IP Newsflash

Stipulated Motion to Stay Denied Until All Defendants Agree to be Bound by IPR Estoppel

June 6, 2025

Reading Time : 2 min

By: Karina J. Moy, Matthew George Hartman, Rubén H. Muñoz

In a patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied a joint motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of inter partes review when it was uncertain that all defendants would be bound by the statutory estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).

Plaintiff sued two related corporate defendants alleging infringement of three patents. After the PTAB instituted IPR petitions filed by a third party challenging the patents-in-suit, defendants filed an opposed motion to stay pending resolution of those IPRs. The PTAB then instituted IPRs filed by one of the two defendants challenging the patents-in-suit, and plaintiff withdrew its opposition to the stay.

Although all parties stipulated to the motion to stay, the court denied the motion without prejudice, noting that the other defendant had neither joined the IPRs nor expressly agreed to be bound by the statutory estoppel provision. According to the court, without estoppel, the other defendant would effectively have a second bite at the apple, being able to advance new invalidity theories that petitioner-defendant reasonably could have raised during the IPRs.

The court allowed the parties to renew their motion to stay, which the parties did. Defendants included a statement that the other defendant agreed to be estopped to the full extent of the estoppel statute and to the same extent as petitioner-defendant, noting that it had indicated its agreement in defendants’ previously opposed motion to stay. The court granted the motion, staying the case pending all final written decisions on the IPR proceedings against the patents-in-suit.

Practice Tip: Parties seeking a district court stay pending resolution of IPR should consider whether all defendants can agree to be bound by the IPR estoppel provision. If so, the defendants should include a statement to that effect in a motion to stay, especially where one or more defendants are not petitioners in the IPR. When it is unclear that a defendant is bound by IPR estoppel, a district court may deny a motion to stay, even if filed as a stipulated motion, because of potential unfairness and waste of judicial resources.

Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v. Hanwha Sols. Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-00262-JRG, D.I. 56 (E.D. Tex. May 1, 2025)

Share This Insight

Categories

IPRsPatent LitigationPatent Infringement
Subscribe to the IP Newsflash Blog Series >

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

February 13, 2026

In an ANDA litigation, the District of Delaware recently denied the defendants’ motion to compel the production of correspondence between the plaintiffs’ testifying expert and a third-party analyst who had performed experiments and provided data used by the testifying expert. The court found that the scope of material sought by the motion was overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 12, 2026

In an ANDA litigation, the District of Delaware recently denied the plaintiffs’ motion to strike portions of the defendants’ expert reports and related deposition testimony. Although the defendants’ invalidity contentions did not state the specific theories of invalidity upon which the expert opined, the court found that none of the Pennypack factors supported excluding that expert testimony.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 12, 2026

The Western District of Texas recently vacated a preliminary injunction after the USPTO issued a non-final rejection in a reexamination proceeding of all claims of the asserted patent directed to magnetic data cables. Although not final, the rejection was based on a substantial question of validity that made vulnerable the counter-plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 30, 2026

A Northern District of Florida court denied a motion to disqualify plaintiffs’ outside counsel based on an alleged violation of a prosecution bar because, although the issue was “not free of doubt,” the court did not find a “clear violation” of the protective order. In reaching its decision, the court explained that disqualification is a “high bar” requiring compelling reasons and that motions to disqualify based on violating a prosecution bar, therefore, should only be granted “if the violation was clear.” Here, the court found it was unclear whether outside counsel prosecuted patents “related to” the asserted patent, in violation of the order, because the scope of “related to” was not clearly defined.

...

Read More

© 2026 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.