Eight Concurrent Petitions Does not Win Sympathy or a Delay


Most Conduct of Proceeding Orders issued by the Board are unremarkable, but in Mobotix Corp. v, e-Watch, Inc., [IPR2013-00499], Paper 16 (Feburary 28, 2014), the patent owner sought a six month delay in the proceedings because it was involved in a total of eight inter partes review proceedings (only one other involving the currently challenged patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,228,429 (IPR2013-00335)).  The Board rejected the delay, noting that delaying the trial for 6 months would mean it could not be completed within the one-year time period required by statute.

The same trick also did not work in Mobotix Corp. v, e-Watch, Inc., [IPR2013-00498], Paper 13 (Feburary 28, 2014), involving U.S. Patent No. 7,023,913, which is also the subject of IPR2013-00337.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.