Category: 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 Communications, Cox Communications, Mediacom Communications, RCN Telecom Services, Time Warner Cable, WaveDivision Holdings, and Wideopen…
-
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 petitioner. As seen in earlier posts, improper identification of RPIs can result in denial of the…
-
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 of Creditors) LLC v. First Data Corp., Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-290 (E.D. Tex.).) The complaint…
-
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 the instituted proceeding. Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp. (IPR2014-00508 and -00509.) In Target, the Board…
-
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 Board had allowed this practice in the past, for example, when a party timely filed…
-
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, Cardiology Div. v. Volcano Corp. & Michelle K. Lee (as Deputy Director) – Appeal of Denial…
-
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 315(b) bar date because the bar triggered prior to the date that the America Invents…