Sorry for the delayed input, but, along the lines of this logical discussion (thank you), it appears there is one more thing to consider.  IF it were the defendents' intent to try to secure a stay, it seems they would have filed their requests for patent re-examination much earlier in the process so that they could get a "ruling" from the USPTO that much sooner.  Thus (with the USPTO granting the re-exam request) they could have filed a motion for a stay that much sooner, and "farther away" from the Markman, greatly increasing the possibility that Ward would grant the motion (without hendering any court schedules, etc.).  This, IMO, adds fuel to the possibility that the defendents won't file a motion for a stay (either that or they are kicking themselves for not engaging the USPTO much sooner - like over a year ago - as it seems they should have been capable of doing so). But, as you state, the defendents really don't much to lose if they file a motion and it is denied (other than Ward possibly thinking "why didn't you guys do this a long time ago?").

SGE