Category Archives: 315(b) One Year Bar

ChanBond Avoids Institution of Six Cisco IPR Petitions

ChanBond sued several cable company defendants alleging patent infringement of three wideband signal distribution system patents in the District of Delaware in 2015.  The defendants included Atlantic Broadband Group, Bright House Networks, Cable One, Cablevision, Cequel Communications, Charter Communications, Comcast … Continue reading

Posted in 315(b) One Year Bar, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, Claim Construction, inter partes review, Litigation, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Unified Patents’ Institution Decision Gives Insight to PTAB’s Real Party in Interest Analysis

Those watching decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) have observed a trend where a patent owner challenges an IPR petition based on alleged defects in the petition’s identification of real parties in interest (RPI) to the … Continue reading

Posted in 315(b) One Year Bar, America Invents Act, Correction of Petition After Bar, estoppel, inter partes review, PTAB | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Patent Board Denies First Data Corp. IPR Petitions Based on Real Party In Interest and One-Year Bar

October 21, 2014 In 2013, Cardsoft, LLC (Patent Owner) sued First Data Corp. (Petitioner) and First Data Merchant Services Corp. for patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas, serving its complaint on May 2, 2013.  (Cardsoft (Assignment for the Benefit … Continue reading

Posted in 315(b) One Year Bar, Correction of Petition After Bar, Indemnification, inter partes review, Litigation, PTAB Patent Trials | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

PTAB Applies “Issue Joinder” Analysis to Deny Microsoft’s IPR Joinder Requests

October 1, 2014 The reader may recall that last week an expanded PTAB panel announced an interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) that essentially ruled out a joinder request for a subsequent IPR petition made by an existing party to … Continue reading

Posted in 315(b) One Year Bar, America Invents Act, Future of PTAB Trial Practice, inter partes review, IPR Joinder, Joinder of AIA Proceedings, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

PTAB Joinder Practice Update: Board Interprets 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) to Require Party Joinder

Sep. 30, 2014 In at least two decisions last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) interpreted the IPR joinder provision, 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), to preclude a joinder request by an existing party to the proceeding.  The … Continue reading

Posted in 315(b) One Year Bar, claim challenges, Future of PTAB Trial Practice, inter partes review, Litigation, prior art, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Federal Circuit Dismisses Appeals by Petitioners Who Were Denied Inter Partes Reviews

The Federal Circuit issued two orders on April 24, 2014 dismissing appeals by petitioners in proceedings where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR).  Each appeal is summarized as follows: St. Jude Medical, … Continue reading

Posted in 315(b) One Year Bar, America Invents Act, claim challenges, Federal Circuit, inter partes review, Litigation, Mandamus Actions in the Federal Circuit, Patent Reform, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Litigation Defendants Cannot Rely on Joinder to Avoid Timing Requirements of Inter Partes Reviews

In my last post, we explored the interplay of the one-year bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and joinder in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.  That case involved a Petitioner who could not have filed an IPR petition prior to the … Continue reading

Posted in 315(b) One Year Bar, America Invents Act, inter partes review, Joinder of AIA Proceedings, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment