DECISION AND ORDER
JEREMIAH J. McCARTHY, Magistrate Judge.
This patent infringement action has been referred to me for supervision of pretrial proceedings .
For the following reasons, the original motion for a stay  is granted, but the request for an extension of the stay is denied. However, the effective date of this Decision and Order will be deferred to March 16, 2015, in order to give defendants the opportunity to argue to Judge Wolford that my reasoning is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law".
Plaintiff Steuben Foods, Inc. ("Steuben") commenced this action on September 24, 2012, alleging infringement of five U.S. patents (6,945,013; 6,536,188; 6,481,468; 6,475,435; and 6,209,591, collectively the "Steuben patents") relating to apparatuses and methods for filling aseptic containers. Complaint . Steuben has also commenced five other actions against different defendants, alleging infringement of most or all of the same patents.
The Prior Stay Motions
Several of the defendants in this and other actions have previously moved to stay the actions pending PTO review of the patents' validity. Those motions were denied. See, e.g.,
The IPR Stay Motion
On March 31, 2014, defendants renewed their motion for a stay of proceedings in this action , arguing that "[o]n March 10, 2014 the . . . PTO instituted . . . IPR invalidity proceedings against all five of Steuben's patents-in-suit . . . . [T]he grant of these IPRs has radically and forever changed the landscape of this case, and presents a more compelling case for a stay than the reexaminations did for [defendants'] earlier motion for stay . . . . Based on the history of instituted IPR proceedings to date, there is now a near statistical certainty that most, if not all, of the claims in these IPRs will be held invalid. By statute, the PTO is due to issue decisions in each IPR proceeding by March 10, 2015. [Defendants] respectfully move[ ] this Court for a stay until then". Defendants' Memorandum of Law , p. 6 of 27.
During oral argument of that motion on May 20, 2014, I stated that "this strikes me as a different animal than the grounds raised previously for the other stays . . . . [H]ere we have the patent appeal board itself saying that it's likely that the claims will be invalidated. That's by no means a guarantee, but seems to cast it in a different light." , p. 3. However, I cautioned that "[i]f I am going to grant a stay, it's only going to be [until] next March."
Thereafter, Nestlé USA, Inc. ("Nestlé"), the defendant in action 13-cv-892, filed its own IPR petitions "between August and early November 2014". Nestlé's Submission (13-cv-892 , p. 9 of 20). During proceedings on November 6, 2014, I cautioned the parties that I did not anticipate extending the stay which I had previously granted: "[A]s you all know, I did stay proceedings pending the outcome of the then filed IPR review proceedings up until either the earlier of the conclusion of those proceedings or, I believe, March 15th of next year. So, we're now about halfway through that time period. And just for people's benefit, I don't think at this point that I would look kindly on a further application for stay made by anyone based on subsequently filed by IPR proceedings because I'm trying to strike a balance here. The case does need to move forward." , p. 4.
On December 23, 2014 the United States Patent and Trademark Appeals Board ("PTAB") terminated GPNA's IPR proceedings without determining the validity of the patent claims, finding that GEA "was an RPI (real party-in-interest) of the instant proceedings that was not identified in the Petitions" (Termination Order, p. 21),
Although the PTAB has terminated the IPR proceedings initiated by GPNA, Nestlé's IPR proceedings, seeking to invalidate the same Steuben patents, are still pending. By Text Order dated January 7, 2015 , I gave the parties in this and the other actions the opportunity to address whether the stay should continue. Oral argument was held on February 9, 2015 .
"The Supreme Court has long recognized that district courts have broad discretion to manage their dockets, including the power to grant a stay of proceedings. The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of causes on its docket. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance."
Defendants argue that "three factors appear relevant to the Court's consideration of a stay pending inter partes review: (1) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case; and (3) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set." Defendants' Brief , p. 9. However, "[t]he three-factor analysis . . . while important, does not capture every relevant consideration".
Considering the "totality of the circumstances", I conclude that defendants have not met their burden for continuing the stay.
Moreover, even if they do proceed, Nestlé's IPRs will not conclude until "May or June 2016 . . . unless the Chief Administrative Patent Judge issues an unprecedented extension (of at most six months) for good cause shown" (Nestlé's Submission  in 13-cv-892, p. 14) — thus conceivably extending the deadline for a decision until December 2016. Even then, the PTAB's final decision "is still subject to appeal to the Federal Circuit . . . . Therefore, even under the new procedures, it may still be years before the inter partes review is truly final".
A delay of that length is clearly not what I had in mind when granting the stay last year. "To be sure, a court is under no obligation to delay its own proceedings by yielding to ongoing PTAB patent reexaminations — even if the reexaminations are relevant to the infringement claims before the Court . . . . The court must ultimately decide stay requests on a case-by-case basis."
Finally, "[a] request for a stay is an appeal to equity",
Therefore, in the exercise of my discretion I conclude that the defendants in this and the other Steuben actions have failed to demonstrate their entitlement to a continuation of the across-the-board stay of all proceedings in these actions. To be clear, that is all I am deciding at this time: other issues, such as whether Steuben may proceed in these actions with respect to claims which have thus far been invalidated by the PTO,
For these reasons, defendants' motion for a stay of all proceedings in this action  is granted to and including March 16, 2015, but their request for an extension of that stay is denied. Absent a contrary order from Judge Wolford, a further status conference in this and the other Steuben actions will be held on March 27, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. Counsel may participate in person or by telephone, upon advance notice to chambers. The parties may submit proposals for further proceedings by March 20, 2015, and replies by March 24, 2015.