Advanced Microscopy Inc. v. Carl Zeiss Microscopy, LLC, C.A. No. 15-516-LPS-CJB, February 11, 2016.

Burke, M. J. Defendant’s motion for stay pending IPR is denied without prejudice to renew after PTAB has issued a decision on whether to initiate the IPR proceeding.

Defendant seeks to invalidate all claims of the patent-in-suit. Defendant’s petition for IPR was filed October 16, 2015.  The PTAB is required to rule by April 16, 2016. The case schedule entered October 23, 2015 has been amended such that initial disclosures will occur in May.  Denial a  of the stay at this point will allow for a more developed record to consider the “simplification of issues” factor.  The court has become less sure about granting a stay when the PTAB has not weighed in on whether to institute review, noting that recent data suggests review is being granted in fewer cases. Also. Chief Judge Stark’s views have impacted this magistrate’s decision. He stated that generally the simplification issue does not cut in favor of granting a stay prior to the PTAB’s decision to institute the IPR.