News & Analysis as of

Real Party in Interest

Real Parties-in-Interest Discovery In Post-Grant Proceedings

by WilmerHale on

The America Invents Act of 2011 requires petitioners in post-grant proceedings—including in all inter partes reviews (IPRs) and covered business method (CBM) reviews—to identify each ‘‘real party-in-interest’’ (i.e., ‘‘the...more

Citizenship of Aircraft Owner Trustee Establishes Federal Court Diversity Jurisdiction

by Holland & Knight LLP on

The Southern District of New York has confirmed that when the trustee of a non-citizen aircraft trust brings suit in its own name, the citizenship of that trustee may be used to establish diversity jurisdiction in federal...more

Senate’s STRONGER Patents Act Aims to Address Key PTAB Patent Owner Woes

by Jones Day on

On June 21, Senators Chris Coons (D-Del), Tom Cotton (R-Ark), Dick Durbin (D-Ill), and Mazie Hironoa (D-Hawaii) introduced the “Support Technology & Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience Patents Act of...more

Without Controlling Interest, Co-Defendants Are Not Real Parties-in-Interest in IPR

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing issues of estoppel and the standard to be considered a real party-in-interest, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted institution of a petition for inter partes review (IPR), rejecting the patent owner’s...more

Fictitious Name Use Fails To Engender Standing Or Jurisdictional Issue

by Allen Matkins on

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 367 requires that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party of interest. What happens when a plaintiff sues under a fictitious business name of a dissolved...more

The Supreme Court’s Decision in Lewis v. Clarke Potentially Opens the Door of Tort Liability for Tribal Employees

On April 25, 2017, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Lewis v. Clarke, holding that tribal sovereign immunity does not bar individual-capacity damages actions against tribal employees for torts committed within the...more

Supreme Court Decides Lewis v. Clarke

by Faegre Baker Daniels on

On April 25, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Lewis v. Clarke, No. 15-1500, holding that an Indian tribe’s sovereign immunity does not bar a suit against a tribe official or employee, in their individual capacity, for acts he...more

The Supreme Court - April 26, 2017

by Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

Lewis v. Clarke, No. 15-1500: Petitioners Brian and Michelle Lewis were involved in an automobile accident with a limousine transporting patrons of the Mohegan Sun Casino, a casino operated by the Mohegan Tribal Gaming...more

Logos and Branding May Create Additional Parties to Insurance Coverage Litigation

by Nexsen Pruet, PLLC on

Insurance coverage lawyers, when defending carriers in first-party claims, regularly deal with the real party in interest issue. The insured’s lawyer, in filing the lawsuit, sometimes names the wrong issuing company, the...more

Jury Verdict in Declined Civil FCA Action Need Not Bar Criminal Prosecution for Same Conduct

by Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

The qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act allow private citizens to file FCA claims on behalf of the government. The government may elect to intervene in the action—or it may not. The United States District Court for...more

No Love for ♥ DC

by Knobbe Martens on

In a case before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), the Board cancelled and abandoned the trademark registration and trademark application for the I "Heart" DC marks owned by an individual, Jonathan A. Chien...more

Medtronic v. Robert Bosch – Has the Federal Circuit closed the door on reviewing IPR institution decisions?

by Knobbe Martens on

On October 20, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued yet another opinion finding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decisions related to the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) are not subject to judicial review. ...more

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - October 2016

by WilmerHale on

Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare (No. 2015-1977, -1986, -1987, 10/20/16) (Lourie, Dyk, Hughes) - Dyk, J. Denying petition for rehearing and confirming the Court's earlier order. “The Board's vacatur of its...more

PTAB Decision To Terminate IPR Proceedings After Institution Is Not Appealable

by Brooks Kushman P.C. on

Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc., No. 2015-1977 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 20, 2016) - Applying the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the AIA’s provision making inter partes review institution decisions...more

PTAB Rejects Consideration of New Issues on Remand

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the scope of a remand from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) declined to consider evidence and arguments presented for the first time on remand....more

Retroactive Estoppel: Acting as Real Party in Interest May Import Estoppel Effects from Earlier-Filed Petitions

by McDermott Will & Emery on

In a decision that could significantly extend the estoppel effects of 35 USC § 315(e), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) found that estoppel applies to all real parties in interest of an inter partes review...more

Agreement To Arbitrate “Any Disputes” Doesn’t Reach Derivative Claims

by Allen Matkins on

Corn v. Superior Court, 2016 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6182 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Aug. 22, 2016) is a case about the meaning of one sentence in a settlement agreement consisting of just seven words – “The Parties agree to...more

The Katten Kattwalk - Issue 10

The Katten Kattwalk discusses legal issues in the fashion industry affecting the trademarks, patents and copyrights associated with companies, brands and products. Please see full Newsletter below for more information....more

How the PTAB Treats Pre-Institution Factual Disputes

by WilmerHale on

As a result of recent changes in the PTAB rules of practice, counsel for patent owners should consider whether there are opportunities to identify factual deficiencies in petitions. Counsel for petitioners in inter partes...more

Lumentum Holdings, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc., Case IPR2015-00739 (Mar. 4, 2016) (Paper 38)

by Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

Takeaway: - The statutory provision that sets forth the requirement to identify all real parties-in-interest in an IPR petition, 35 U.S.C. §312(a)(2), is not jurisdictional in nature. Failing to comply with this...more

The PTAB Review - June 2016

Post-Grant Review Proceeding Filings Ramp Up In addition to inter partes review (IPR) and covered business method (CBM) review proceedings, the America Invents Act (AIA) provides for post-grant review (PGR) proceedings. PGR...more

Post-Grant Review Roils Patent Litigation Waters

The America Invents Act (AIA) has had a profound impact on patent litigation, particularly surrounding inter partes and other post-grant proceedings. Below, Manish K. Mehta, who handles patent litigation across an array of...more

Amendments to the Rules of Practice for Trials Before the PTAB Take Effect May 2, 2016

by WilmerHale on

The US Patent and Trademark Office has announced amendments to the Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that will take effect on May 2, 2016. The amendments generally adopt the rules proposed...more

Real Party-in-Interest in Post-Grant Proceedings

by Fish & Richardson on

A party petitioning for inter partes review (IPR) is required to name all real parties-in-interest (RPIs)—this helps ensure proper application of statutory estoppel and assists the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in...more

PTO Issues Final Rule Changes to IPR Proceedings

The PTO issued its long-anticipated rule changes for IPR and PGR proceedings. These rules follow up on immediate changes to the rules that were implemented about a year ago. Generally considered pro-Patent Owner changes to...more

86 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 4
Cybersecurity

"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:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*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. Or, sign up using your email address.