Robinson, J. Defendants’ motion for partial stay pending inter partes review is denied.
Defendant petitioned for IPR for five of the ten patents-in-suit. The PTAB has instituted review of 4 of the 5 patents-in-suit. The request for review was filed after an initial wave of motion practice and a scheduling conference was set. The court finds that a stay will not simplify the issues in question and trial because the NAND flash memory technology is at issue in both the IPR and other patents-in-suit not subject to IPR. IPR determinations are expected before claim construction in this case. Defendant is now precluded from litigating validity on any ground raised or which could reasonably have been raised in the IPR. Furthermore, because there is a difference between the administrative and judicial proceedings, precise duplication of effort does not occur. The court further discusses the impact of the AIA on the resolution of patent disputes.