PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • Joinder
Select Page
Control of IPR Petition Remains Primary Factor in RPI Determination

Control of IPR Petition Remains Primary Factor in RPI Determination

by Matthew Johnson | Jan 28, 2020 | Federal Circuit Appeal, Real Party in Interest

By Robby Breetz and Matt Johnson Determining the Real Party-in-Interest (“RPI”) in an IPR can have critical implications for estoppel.  A patent owner can prevent institution of an IPR by showing that an RPI has previously “filed a civil action challenging the...
PTAB Declines Institution After Discovery of Unnamed Real Party in Interest

PTAB Declines Institution After Discovery of Unnamed Real Party in Interest

by David Maiorana | Nov 7, 2019 | Real Party in Interest, Trial Institution

By Robby Breetz and Dave Maiorana To institute an inter partes review (IPR), the petition requesting the proceeding must be filed within one year of the petitioner or real party in interest (RPI) receiving a complaint alleging patent infringement.  35 U.S.C. §...
Post-Filing, Pre-Institution Merger Time-Bars Inter Partes Review

Post-Filing, Pre-Institution Merger Time-Bars Inter Partes Review

by Matthew Johnson | Jun 28, 2019 | Real Party in Interest

By Jihong Lou and Matt Johnson In Power Integrations v. Semiconductor Components, the Federal Circuit ruled that privy and real-party-in-interest (RPI) relationships arising after a petition is filed but before institution may bar institution under section 315(b).  In...
PTAB Rejects “Real Party in Interest” Challenge to Apple’s Inter Partes Review Petition

PTAB Rejects “Real Party in Interest” Challenge to Apple’s Inter Partes Review Petition

by Emily Tait | Jun 18, 2019 | PTAB News, Real Party in Interest

By Emily Tait – The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently issued a Final Written Decision in Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A., Case IPR2018-00282 (June 4, 2019) (Paper 30), rejecting Uniloc’s argument that Unified Patents (“Unified”) is a real...
PTAB Designates § 315(b) Time Bar Order Precedential

PTAB Designates § 315(b) Time Bar Order Precedential

by Matthew Johnson | May 21, 2019 | Real Party in Interest

By Tom Ritchie and Matt Johnson In an order designated precedential, the PTAB terminated an instituted IPR proceeding after the petitioner failed to establish that no real parties in interest (“RPI”) or privies had been served with a complaint more than one year...
Role Of Company Board Members May Impact RPI Analysis

Role Of Company Board Members May Impact RPI Analysis

by Jennifer Chheda, Ph.D. | Jan 4, 2019 | Real Party in Interest, Request for Reconsideration

By Jennifer Chheda Ph.D. and John Kinton The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently denied the request of petitioner Fasteners for Retail, Inc. (“FFR” or “petitioner”) for rehearing in connection with decisions denying the institution of inter partes review...
« Older Entries
Next Entries »

About this blog

Follow us on Twitter

Categories

  • 325(d) issues
  • Amendment Practice
  • CBMs
  • Claim Construction
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • Estoppel
  • Evidentiary Issues
  • Expert Witnesses
  • Federal Circuit
  • Federal Circuit Appeal
  • Final Written Decisions
  • Joinder
  • Motions Practice
  • Other News
  • Patent Eligible Subject Matter
  • Petitions
  • PGR
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Preliminary Responses
  • Prior Art Issues
  • PTAB News
  • PTAB Trial Basics
  • Real Party in Interest
  • Request for Reconsideration
  • Standing
  • Stay
  • Time Limits
  • Trial Institution
  • Uncategorized

Archives

Links

www.jonesday.com

About Jones Day's Intellectual Property Practice

Subscribe to Jones Day publications

  • Privacy
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google
  • RSS

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jones Day or its clients. The posts and information provided are for general information purposes and are not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

We use cookies to deliver our online services. Details of the cookies and other tracking technologies we use and instructions on how to disable them are set out in our Cookies Policy. By using this website you consent to our use of cookies. Cookie Policy