PTAB Identifies Two Prior Decisions as Precedential

Edwin V. (Ted) Merkel

The PTAB designated its termination decision in Infiltrator Water Technologies, LLC v. Presby Patent Trust, IPR2018-00224 (Paper 18)(entered October 1, 2018) as precedential on September 9, 2019, and its decision denying institution in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc., IPR2018-01511 (Paper 11)(entered January 31, 2019) as precedential on August 29, 2019.  These cases illustrate application of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2018), which held that 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) “unambiguously precludes the Director from instituting an IPR if the petition seeking institution is filed more than one year after the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner ‘is served with a complaint’ alleging patent infringement,” and that § 315(b) “does not contain any exceptions or exemptions for complaints . . . that are subsequently dismissed, with or without prejudice.”  Click-to-Call, 899 F.3d at 1330.

Continue reading “PTAB Identifies Two Prior Decisions as Precedential”

IPR Institution Is Not Permanent, and Is Nonappealable

Biodelivery Sciences Int’l, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Appeal Nos. 2019-1643, -1644, -1645 (Fed. Cir. August 29, 2019)

Photo of John P. Isacson
John Isacson

On motion, the Federal Circuit dismissed the second appeals in three IPRs pertaining to oral films used for the delivery of active components.  The PTAB initially instituted the three IPRs, but not on all the grounds contained in the petitions.  In total, there were seventeen grounds in the petitions, and the PTAB instituted on only three.

Continue reading “IPR Institution Is Not Permanent, and Is Nonappealable”

A Party Who Lacks Standing Can Still Trigger the Section 315(b) Time Bar

GoPro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc., IPR2018-01754 (Precedential Opinion Panel, August 23, 2019)

By John Isacson

Section 315(b) of Title 35 prohibits institution of an IPR where the petition is filed more than one year after service of a complaint alleging patent infringement.

In GoPro v. 360Heros, the Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) considered a situation where GoPro petitioned for an IPR more than one year after 360Heros filed a counterclaim alleging patent infringement.  Before the district court, GoPro successfully challenged 360Heros’ standing to sue on the basis that 360Heros had not been formally assigned title to the asserted patent by the inventor at the time of filing its counterclaim.  Subsequently, 360Heros did receive an assignment.

GoPro filed its petition more than one year after 360Heros’ counterclaim was served.  360Heros sought to have the IPR barred for failure to comply with 35 USC 315(b), which states: Continue reading “A Party Who Lacks Standing Can Still Trigger the Section 315(b) Time Bar”