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

November 17,2025

The district of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s partial motion to dismiss pre-suit willful infringement from the litigation, finding instead that the allegations taken as a whole were sufficient to support pre-suit willfulness at the pleading stage. Specifically, the court found that the allegations as to the defendant’s involvement in a related foreign opposition proceeding and participation in the relevant industry were accompanied by detailed factual support that sufficiently pleaded willful infringement for the pre-suit period.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 14, 2025

The Ninth Circuit recently reversed a district court’s decision to strike a plaintiff’s trade secret claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) at the discovery stage. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit made clear that under the DTSA, whether a party defined their trade secret with sufficient particularity is a question of fact that generally does not lend itself to resolution in the absence of at least some discovery. This ruling contrasts with the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), which requires a party to define their trade secrets with reasonable particularity before commencing discovery.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a summary judgment ruling of invalidity, holding that the district court erred in applying preclusive effect to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s unpatentability findings regarding other claims in the same patent. In doing so, the Federal Circuit reiterated that issue preclusion does not apply where the prior factual determinations were made under a lower standard of proof.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently clarified the requirement for work disclosed in a reference to qualify as “by another” under pre-AIA Sections 102(a) and (e), holding that there must be complete inventive identity between the information disclosed in the asserted reference and the inventors named on the relevant patent. 

...

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.