To Stay or Not to Stay: Patent Litigation in the Federal District Courts

Abstract

We investigate when district judges stay litigation pending the resolution of parallel administrative proceedings. Leveraging unique aspects of patent litigation to create a robust test of the proposition, we consider how ideology conditions judicial behavior on this procedural judgment. We find that legal considerations guide stay decisions and that there is also an ideological dimension to that choice. Conservative district judges approach motions to stay consistent with conservative concerns regarding frivolous litigation even as they are influenced by case characteristics. This suggests a role for judicial discretion and implies that ideology’s influence in the district courts may be greater than frequently thought.

When Advocates Become Adjudicators: Tracing the Effects of Prosecutorial and Public Defense Experience on Judicial Decision Making

“…Decision making by federal district judges is distinct from the job of their appellate counterparts in important ways (Kim et al, 2009; p. 84–85; Miller & Curry, 2022). As trial-level decision makers in the federal system, it is the district court’s responsibility to judge the relevance and admissibility of evidence, hear testimony and objections, rule on motions, and establish findings of fact (e.g., Kim et al, 2009).…”