Filing an IPR or PGR petition does not by itself stay an existing district-court infringement action. Continue meeting court deadlines unless an applicable rule or court order changes them.
What does the judge consider?
In Murata Machinery USA, Inc. v. Daifuku Co., Ltd., the Federal Circuit described three usual considerations: prejudice or tactical disadvantage to the opposing party, potential simplification, and the stage of discovery and trial preparation. It also recognized discretion to consider litigation burdens and other relevant circumstances. This is a case-specific decision, not a guaranteed result.
Does institution guarantee a stay?
No. Institution changes the record available for a stay motion, but the court still controls its docket. Explain which asserted claims and issues the Office proceeding could resolve and what work would remain in court.
Are there statutory exceptions?
Yes. Section 315(a)(2) provides a distinct automatic-stay rule, with exceptions, when an IPR petitioner or its real party in interest files a civil action challenging validity on or after the petition date. That is different from staying a patent owner's existing infringement suit.
Separately, 28 U.S.C. 1659 requires a district-court stay of overlapping issues on a timely request by a party that is also a respondent in an ITC Section 337 proceeding. The request must fall within the statutory 30-day window measured from the later of the party being named an ITC respondent or the district action being filed.
What if the Office denies institution?
Review the terms of any existing stay and ask the court to address the changed circumstances. An Office decision does not itself rewrite a district-court order. IPR estoppel under section 315(e) is tied to a final written decision, not merely to filing a petition or receiving an institution denial.