OTCTrader...By looking at the judge's past history on motions for delaying the Markman, it is plausible, that one could assume he would do the same in this instance.....BUT...as your post shows we have a difference here...the defendant in the case you mentioned waited till AFTER...the Markman to file for a stay...

"He concluded that the first factor, which asks whether  a stay would unduly prejudice or present a tactical disadvantage to the plaintiff weighed against a stay, since the defendant had waited until the case was a year old and the court had held the Markman hearing before moving for a stay despite the fact that over 90% of all reexamination requests are granted (citing  statistics from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data dated September 30, 2004). "

In our case, the Markman is still untried and this prior case would not be a precdent for the judge to rule in our favor against a motion to stay our Markman..

In fact the last Markman I was involved with was stayed for 2 years till the ex parte re-exam was completed.

Granted, that in my previous case, we were not in the same district that seems to favor patent holders.  I can see though, the case being argued by the defendants that a stay would be logical due to the granting of a reexam by the PTO since the Markman is scheduled but not started as of this date.

I look for a stay to be filed ASAP this morning... sorry but just MHO.