In the PTAB’s recent decision in Code 200 v. Bright Data Ltd., IPR2021-01503, Paper No. 13 (PTAB Mar. 14, 2022), the PTAB expounded upon the circumstances in which joinder of a “me-too” case under § 315(b) was not...more
NeuMoDx Molecular, Inc., (Petitioner) who was otherwise barred from pursuing two IPR proceedings regarding patents owned by HandyLab, Inc. (Patent Owner) under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)’s one year deadline, filed a Motion to Change...more
After being sued by Uniloc in April 2018 for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,467,088 (“Reconfiguration Manager for Controlling Upgrades of Electronic Devices”), Apple challenged claims 1-21 of that patent at the PTAB in...more
11/6/2020
/ § 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
Apple ,
Denial of Institution ,
General Plastic Factors ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Joinder ,
Microsoft ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents
Although infrequently awarded, district courts are empowered to issue sanctions for behavior at the PTAB that they deem “exceptional” under Octane Fitness. In Game and Technology Co., Ltd. v. Wargaming Group Limited,...more
10/30/2020
/ § 315(b) ,
Exceptional Case ,
Hague Convention ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Octane Fitness v. ICON ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Proof of Service ,
Sanctions ,
Summons ,
Time-Barred Claims
Throughout the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) history, patent owners have tried to leverage a petitioner’s alleged failure to name all real parties-in-interest (“RPIs”) as a way to achieve denial of an inter partes...more
Current PTAB-relevant case law dictates:
35 U.S.C. § 315(b) “unambiguously precludes the Director from instituting an IPR if the petition seeking institution is filed more than one year after the petitioner, real party in...more
Recently, we reported about the Supreme Court’s decision holding that the AIA’s “no appeal” provision in 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) means that the PTAB’s decision not to institute IPR because a petition is time barred under 35 U.S.C....more
This week, the United States Supreme Court interpreted the scope of the AIA’s “no appeal” provision found in 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) (“Section 314(d)”). Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs, L.P., No. 18-916, 2020 WL 1906544 (Apr....more
4/27/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d)’s statement that the “determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable”...more
In two related decisions, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Owner, Acoustic Technology, Inc. (“Acoustic”) waived its time-bar challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (“Section 315(b)”) by failing to assert them in the IPR...more
The status of a parallel district court proceeding may provide a basis for the PTAB to deny institution of an IPR pursuant to § 314(a). NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sep. 12, 2018)...more
The PTAB has been very active in designating decisions precedential and informative in 2019. Here’s a recap of designations so far...more
The PTAB has previously applied to IPR filings the statutory grace period under 35 U.S.C. § 21(b) for USPTO papers and fees due on a weekend or holiday. See Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Immersion Corp., Case IPR2018-01468, slip op....more
The PTAB Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) has concluded that the one-year time bar for filing an IPR petition under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) is triggered by the service of a complaint alleging infringement even if “the serving...more
In a recent appeal of two inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) held that the Board abused its discretion in denying...more
In Power Integrations v. Semiconductor Components, the Federal Circuit ruled that privy and real-party-in-interest (RPI) relationships arising after a petition is filed but before institution may bar institution under section...more
6/28/2019
/ § 315(b) ,
Appeals ,
Chevron Deference ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Issue Preclusion ,
Mergers ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Privity of Contract ,
Real Party in Interest ,
Time-Barred Claims
In an order designated precedential, the PTAB terminated an instituted IPR proceeding after the petitioner failed to establish that no real parties in interest (“RPI”) or privies had been served with a complaint more than one...more
Further to the PTAB’s efforts to improve the ability of patent owners to amend claims in an AIA trial via the Motion to Amend Pilot program, the USPTO recently issued guidance on other avenues for amending claims of patents...more
On January 31, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a decision granting institution of inter partes review in Sling TV, L.L.C. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, L.L.C., No. IPR2018-01331, where the Board held that a...more
In Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Tech. v. iRobot Corp., IPR2018-00761, Paper 15 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2018), the PTAB denied institution of Shenzhen Silver Star’s IPR petition in view of an earlier challenge to the same patent by...more
In Click-To-Call Tech. v. Ingenio, Inc., 2015-1242, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) (en banc), the Federal Circuit found that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of a district court litigation does not reset the...more
On January 10, 2018, the PTAB designated two decisions weighing on 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) as informative:
Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v. McGinley, IPR2017-01216, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 18, 2017) (AIA § 315(b), insufficient funds at...more