PTAB Litigation Blog
  • Home
  • Cookie Policy
  • About
  • Advanced Topics
  • Contributors
  • Contacts
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • Joinder
Select Page
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...
Typical Supplier/Co-Defendant Is Not An RPI Or Privy

Typical Supplier/Co-Defendant Is Not An RPI Or Privy

by Kenneth Luchesi | Dec 14, 2018 | Real Party in Interest

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...
Board Grants Discovery Regarding RPI Issues

Board Grants Discovery Regarding RPI Issues

by Albert Liou | Dec 11, 2018 | Discovery, Real Party in Interest

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...
Challenges to Real Parties-in-Interest Continue to Terminate IPR Proceedings

Challenges to Real Parties-in-Interest Continue to Terminate IPR Proceedings

by S. Christian Platt | Mar 5, 2018 | Real Party in Interest

By: Jasper L. Tran and S. Christian Platt In prior blog posts, we have commented on PTAB decisions terminating IPR proceedings due to the Petitioner’s failure to identify all real parties-in-interest. See blog posts on Sanction For Failing to Update Real Party In...
« Older Entries
Next Entries »

About this blog

Categories

  • 325(d) issues
  • Amendment Practice
  • CBMs
  • Claim Construction
  • Design Patents
  • Discovery
  • District Court
  • 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
    • X
    • 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.