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

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

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