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

December 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a writ of mandamus that challenged the PTO Director’s reliance on “settled expectations” to discretionarily deny two inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In so doing, the court explained that, while it was not deciding whether the Director’s use of “settled expectations” was correct, the petitioner’s arguments about what factors the Director may consider when deciding whether to institute an IPR or post-grant review (PGR) are not generally reviewable and did not provide sufficient basis for mandamus review here.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 5, 2025

District courts are split on whether a complaint can provide the required knowledge for post-suit indirect and willful infringement in that same lawsuit. Chief Judge Connolly in the District of Delaware recently confirmed that, consistent with his prior opinions, the complaint cannot serve as the basis for knowledge for either a claim of post-suit indirect infringement or a demand for willfulness-based enhanced damages in that lawsuit.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held that a patentee acted as its own lexicographer to define a claim term even though it did not explicitly define the term. Rather, because the patentee consistently and clearly used two terms interchangeably to describe the same structural feature and did so in all of the embodiments in which the feature appeared, the patentee impliedly gave the term its own, unique definition.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 2, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held an asserted patent was not entitled to its priority date because the priority application lacked written description support for the asserted claims. In so doing, the court explained that broad disclosures that do not provide reasonably specific support for narrower claims do not meet the written description requirement. The court also considered whether the inventor’s testimony showed they possessed the full scope of the claimed genus at the priority date or whether it was more likely the inventors first became aware of the claimed embodiments from public disclosures of the accused product.

...

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.