Parallel track proceedings: determining whether to stay litigation

[...]the test requires the court to ask whether a stay would reduce the burden of the litigation on the parties and the court. Since the entire purpose of the transitional program at the PTO is to reduce the burden of litigation, it is nearly impossible to imagine a scenario in which a district court would not issue a stay.5 Two additional differences between CBMs and IPRs can affect the strategy for whether and when to seek a stay. [...]judges in the Eastern District almost never have granted a motion to stay litigation until after the PTAB has instituted a CBM or IPR proceeding.19 This might impact a decision on whether and when to file an IPR petition. Because a defendant can file an IPR petition at any time up until the one-year anniversary of being served with a lawsuit, it is possible that the PTAB will not decide whether to institute an IPR proceeding as much as one and one-half years into the case.20 This means that the litigation may be close to trial by the time the court considers whether to stay the litigation.21 As discussed, this might make a stay less likely and thus may impact the decision of whether to file a CBM or IPR petition.