直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

At the PTAB Blog

Will An IPR Result in a Stay of Co-Pending Litigation?

May 17, 2013

Authored and Edited by Jonathan R.K. Stroud

Since September 16, 2012, when the procedure became available, challengers have filed 234 requests for inter partes review. In 82% of these filings, the petitioner was also a defendant in a co-pending litigation. Although the calculus of “doubling down” on a related proceeding will vary from case to case, it will often include consideration of whether the accused infringer can leverage the IPR into a stay of the civil litigation.

How do we calculate the odds that an IPR precipitates a stay of co-pending litigation? Clearly, the likelihood of a stay will depend on case-specific factors, jurisdiction, and presiding judge.  Nevertheless, as a general measure, we can begin with the number of relevant litigations.

Recognizing that a single litigation often relates to multiple IPR requests, we identified 98 litigations associated with at least one IPR. As reflected in the table below, in 51 of these cases, parties have requested a stay; 16 of these are pending and two settled before a decision on the merits. Not controlling for whether the stay was stipulated or unopposed, the 34 decisions resulted in 10 denials and 24 grants.

IPR Requests to Date

Litigations Associated with IPR

Litigation Stay Requests

Stay Decisions

Stay Granted

Stay Denied

234

98

51

34

24

10

Thus, whereas challengers only request a stay in about half of the co-pending litigations, more than 70% of all requests for stay have been granted to date.

*Jonathan R.K. Stroud is a Law Clerk at Finnegan.

Copyright © 2013 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 

DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. Additional disclaimer information. 

Related Insights

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 AIPLA Annual Meeting

October 29-31, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Conference

ChIPs Global Summit 2026

October 21-23, 2026

Los Angeles

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California

October 19-20, 2026

San Francisco

Conference

31st Annual UMass Chan Research Retreat

October 14-15, 2026

Worcester

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York

September 28-29, 2026

New York

Conference

2026 IPO Annual Meeting

September 27-29, 2026

Toronto

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP