Typical Supplier/Co-Defendant Is Not An RPI Or Privy
By Kenny Luchesi In a recently published decision, the PTAB held that Samsung’s petition for inter partes review of a patent owned by The SEVEN Networks LLC was not time-barred under § 315(b). Samsung filed its petition less than one year after being served with a...
read more
Motion to Amend Denied for Failure to Meet 42.121 Requirements
By Levent Herguner and Matt Johnson On November 26, 2018, the PTAB entered its Final Written Decision in Intel Corp. v. Alacritech, Inc., Case IPR2017-01391, denying Patent Owner Alacritech, Inc.’s Motion to Amend in the inter partes review of certain claims of U.S....
read more
Click-to-Call Cert Petition – Second Extension of Time Granted
By Doug Pearson - 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 Federal Circuit’s...
read more
Board Grants Discovery Regarding RPI Issues
By Albert Liou - In Cavium, LLC v. Alacritech, Inc., Case IPR2018-00401 (PTAB Nov. 20, 2018) (Paper 24), the PTAB granted a Patent Owner’s motion for additional discovery relating to real party-in-interest. The split-panel decision is interesting because both the...
read more
Does § 315(e)(2) Say What It Means and Mean What It Says?
By Emily Tait - When an IPR petition results in a final written decision, the IPR petitioner (or the petitioner’s real party in interest or privy) is estopped from asserting in a civil litigation or an ITC action that “the claim...
read more