Rapid Completions LLC v. Baker Hughes Incorporated et al, No. 6:15-cv-00724 (E.D. Tex. June 1, 2016)

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

Before the Court is Defendants Baker Hughes Incorporated and Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc.’s (collectively, “Baker Hughes”) Motion to Stay (“the Motion”). Doc. No. 132. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES-IN-PART the Motion without prejudice and GRANTS Defendant’s request for alternative relief. BACKGROUND Between February 12 and 25, 2016, Baker Hughes filed petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) covering all asserted claims of each of the patents-in-suit. Doc. No. 132 at 1.