Was there an  inter parte re-examination 

No 

The original litigation over ownership of the '336 between PTSC and Moore/TPL was in the Northern District of CA.  Townsend Townsend & Crew represented Moore/TPL... they got our (PTSC's) star witness, Higgins [who was both Fish's & Moore's patent attorney, and who was going to testify and supply evidence in our favor that Fish was the original inventor of the '336 patent] removed from contributing to the littigation due to Attorney Client Privilege.  They also got our counsel booted from the litigation...  TT&C destroyed PTSC and their counsel.  Thankfully cooler heads prevailed and PTSC & Moore/TPL agreed to join the patent ownership, creating the MMP...

Jump to the present..  The Js have been trying to get that info re the ACP from the No Dist CA into this litigation to try to prove that Moore was not the inventor of the '336, and that therefore the patents were incorrectly granted in the first place.   Not only did Fed Judge Fogel deny Higgins testimony due to ACP in NDistCA, but his ruling was upheld thru appeal.  So, inorder for the Higgins et al (ACP) testimony to be allowed in this littigation Judge Ward would have had to overturn a fellow Fed Judge's ruling, that was upheld thru appeal.... 

I have an idea how Judge Ward was going to rule... 

Many here feel Judge Ward let the Js know he was going to deny their Motion to allow the ACP testimony, and that contributed to their capitulation to settle..  If he was going to grant the ACP  motion, I don't believe it would lead all to agreeing to request a Stay.

jmo