So, it appears to be unusual to have 2 Markman Claim construction Orders in the patent owner's favor going into MAYBE a review, if it is granted...for what it's worth....this scenario probably has very few statistics, in a lowlife Plank's opinion:

The AIA has changed the way patents are litigated. In the vast majority of litigations pursued post-AIA, an IPR challenge is becoming the rule. Since by definition IPRs must be pursued relatively early in the litigation calendar, the IPR Trial Order that includes claim construction will almost always issue in advance of a Markman Order. In fact, it will come a mere 6 months from filing of the petition. Currently, while IPR Trial Orders applying BRI can be helpful in calibrating the expectations of a patentee on their overall litigation outlook, such determinations are not binding on the court due to the difference in standards. Under a PTAB Philips analysis, it would be the same —in theory —and likely very helpful to the courts given the PTAB's technical decision makers.

http://www.patentspostgrant.com/a-philips-construction-at-the-ptab-will-derail-patent-litigation