News & Analysis as of

Voluntary Dismissals § 315(b)

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

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

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

McDermott Will & Emery

Supreme Court to Consider Time Bar to AIA Challenge

The Supreme Court of the United States, brushing aside the position taken by the US Patent and Trademark Office as to the suitability of this case as a vehicle for review, agreed to consider whether a petition for an America...more

Jones Day

Supreme Court To Decide Appealability of PTAB’s Time-Bar Determinations

Jones Day on

On June 24, in Dex Media, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, No. 18-916 (U.S.), the Supreme Court agreed to review the question whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) permits appeal of the PTAB’s decision to institute an inter...more

Jones Day

Cert Petition Seeks Review of Time-Bar Trigger for Voluntarily Dismissed Complaints

Jones Day on

On January 11, 2019, Dex Media filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Click-To-Call Tech. v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc in relevant part)....more

Jones Day

Click-to-Call Cert Petition – Second Extension of Time Granted

Jones Day on

As reported in a prior post, DexMedia, Inc. previously filed an Application for Extension of Time to File a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari requesting an extension of 30 days in which to file a cert petition challenging the...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

One-Year Time Bar for IPR Filing Triggered Even When Served Complaint Is Voluntarily Dismissed

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In August, the Federal Circuit addressed the 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) one-year time bar to IPR institution in Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc. In an en banc footnote, the court held that an IPR cannot be instituted...more

Jones Day

BREAKING: Click-to-Call and One-Year Time Bar – Petition for Certiorari Incoming

Jones Day on

As reported in a prior post, the Federal Circuit in Click-To-Call Tech. v. Ingenio, Inc., 2015-1242 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) (en banc) found in a divided 10-2 en banc decision that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - August 2018

WilmerHale on

Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (No. 2017-1521, 8/27/18) (Reyna, Taranto, Chen) Reyna, J. - Vacating and remanding the PTAB’s IPR decision because the PTAB erred in not considering portions of the petitioner’s...more

Jones Day

Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice Does Not Reset One-Year Time Bar #2

Jones Day on

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

Knobbe Martens

Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Iancu

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summary - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The section 315(b) time-bar for IPRs applies even when the underlying complaint alleging infringement...more

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

PTAB Strategies and Insights - August 2018

The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more

Troutman Pepper

CAFC Reverses PTAB On §315(b) Petition Time Bar Interpretation

Troutman Pepper on

Section 315(b) of the America Invents Act (AIA) provides that an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding “may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the...more

15 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