News & Analysis as of

§ 315(b) Precedential Opinion

Snell & Wilmer

IPRs Terminated by PTAB After Petitioner Failed to Name Client as RPI

Snell & Wilmer on

In RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time LLC, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) held in a precedential opinion that three inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) were time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because the...more

Jones Day

PTAB Bar Association – Thought Leader Summit Recap

Jones Day on

In November, the PTAB Bar Association held its annual Thought Leader Summit. The Summit highlighted recent changes to PTAB practice, with a keynote address from USPTO Director Andrei Iancu. In the opening remarks, Director...more

McDermott Will & Emery

PTAB Designates Three Opinions as Precedential

McDermott Will & Emery on

In General Electric Co. v. United Technologies Corp., Case No. IPR2017-00491 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (Weatherly, APJ) (designated precedential on Sept. 9, 2019), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute...more

McDermott Will & Emery

IPR Time-Bar Clock Starts Ticking on Service of Complaint, Even if Deficient

McDermott Will & Emery on

In a precedential decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) dismissed a petition for inter partes review (IPR), finding that the one-year time limit for filing an IPR petition under 35 USC § 315(b) is triggered even...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

PTAB Strategies and Insights - September 2019: PTAB Further Clarifies DJ Action Time Bar and Statutory Disclaimers

The PTAB designated at least three more decisions as precedential. Of note, two of the cases rely on the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Click to Call, which is scheduled for argument at the Supreme Court on December 9,...more

Jones Day

PTAB Precedential Decision Recap

Jones Day on

The PTAB has been very active in designating decisions precedential and informative in 2019. Here’s a recap of designations so far...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Prior Civil Action Bars IPR - A precedential decision

On August 29, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated as precedential its January 31, 2019 decision in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc. In Cisco, the PTAB held that 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1) bars...more

Jones Day

Precedential Order Confirms Involuntary Dismissal Triggers § 315(b) Time Bar

Jones Day on

On November 21, 2017, Petitioner Infiltrator Water Technologies, LLC, filed a Petition for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 8–12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,815,094 B2. In its Preliminary Response, filed on March 7, 2018, Patent...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Perils of Waiting: PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel Designates Two More Decisions Rejecting 315(b) Arguments Regarding Time Bars

In two decisions recently designated as “precedential,” the PTAB rejected two theories raised by petitioners for why the service of a complaint should not trigger Section 315(b)’s one-year time bar for filing a petition. In...more

Jones Day

IPR Time Bar Triggered Even If Party Serving Complaint Lacks Standing

Jones Day on

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

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

All Complaints Once Served—Even Defective Complaints that are Dismissed—Trigger the IPR Time Bar

On Friday, the PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel, colloquially referred to as “the POP,” ruled that the one-year window to file inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions begins once a complaint alleging infringement is...more

Knobbe Martens

"Pop Change" No Longer Means Buying Soda in Ohio: Keeping up with the Precedential Opinion Panel in 2019

Knobbe Martens on

For many practitioners, it seems that change is the only certainty at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. And only five months into the year, change in 2019 has become more certain than ever. Late last year, the PTAB...more

Jones Day

PTAB Designates § 315(b) Time Bar Order Precedential

Jones Day on

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

Jones Day

POP: Does a Complaint Without Standing Trigger The IRP Time Bar?

Jones Day on

The PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) will consider, at the behest of 360Heros, whether a complaint alleging patent infringement made by a party other than the patent owner of the patent triggers the § 315(b) time bar....more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

PTAB Strategies and Insights - April 2019: Petitioners Can Change RPI after 315(b) Bar Date

The PTAB added three new precedential decisions following an older precedential decision directed to acceptable circumstance for a petitioner to change the real party in interest during trial - even after a bar date has...more

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC

USPTO Designates Three Decisions Relating to Real-Party-in-Interest as Precedential

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC on

As discussed in our alert from last week, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has recently taken measures to increase the predictability and uniformity at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The USPTO...more

Miller Canfield

Patent Trial and Appeal Board Gives Green Light to Same-Party and Issue Joinder

Miller Canfield on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") has issued a precedential opinion that gives a green light to same-party and issue joinder. This practice will provide discretion to PTAB judges to allow a petitioner to add new...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Precedential PTAB Panel Says Petitioners Can Join Their Own Earlier-Filed IPRs and Join New Issues in Limited Circumstance

In its first decision since its inception, the Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) for the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), in Proppant Express Investments, LLC v. Oren Technologies, LLC, IPR2018-00914, held that...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

PTAB Precedent Opinion Panel Clarifies Standard for Joinder of Parties and Issues

On March 13, 2018, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)’s Precedential Opinion Panel (POP), consisting of Director Andrei Iancu, Commissioner of Patents Drew Hirshfeld, and newly appointed...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

2019 Report: Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB - Summaries of Key 2018 Decisions

In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed close to 600 appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). That is the second highest number since starting to hear post-American Invents Act...more

20 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide