There is currently a lot of speculations whether the Texas case will move on, or get stayed, pending the IPR appeal.

There is no regulation that mandates a halt in patent litigation before a district court due to either the filing or institution of an IPR. If a stay is allowed, the proceedings in the case will be put on hold until the PTAB reaches a final decision, and in some instances, until any appeals related to the PTAB’s final determination are resolved.

The party seeking a stay must demonstrate that the circumstances justify such a halt. District courts possess the authority to either grant or deny a stay during IPR proceedings as part of their discretion to manage their dockets. This means that different judges may exercise this discretion differently, with some judges being more likely to grant a stay in litigation pending IPR than others.

Considering both patents (879 and 993), are being appealed, though from different directions; 993 being found non-patentable/obvious and 879 being upheld, the judge can decide to continue the proceedings anyway. Its to his discretion to decide, based on if waiting for the IPR appeals to be determined can simplify issues or not.

Since we now have “one up” and “one down”, the judge could very well decide to move on, and let the IPR run in parallel.

And with the schedule set, judge Albright could chose to continue the case with both patents. (since validity is also a subject at the district court case).