- Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v. Almondnet, Inc And Intent Iq, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 6, 2023 · IPR2023-00227 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review of claims 36 and 37 as time-barred under § 315(b), and denied the motion for joinder as moot.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDenied
“instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” Patent Owner served Petitioner with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’398 Patent in September 2021. Ex. 1016. Petitioner filed the Petition more than one year later on November 18, 2022. Pet. 80. Petitioner relies on its request to join the Meta IPR to avoid the time bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Pet. 9 (“Because Petitioner files an accompanying motion for” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“In any event, in addition to the mootness of Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder due to termination of the Meta IPR, we are not persuaded that joinder would have been appropriate. More specifically, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that “joinder will have little, if any impact on the Meta IPR because . . . the schedule would be unaffected.” Mot. 3; see also Mot. 4 (“Joinder will not affect the schedule in the Meta IPR.”). We note that stipulated Due Date 2 for filing a reply in the Meta IPR was May 2, 2023. See IPR2022-00773, Paper 14. In view of the fact that stipulated Due Date 2 in the Meta IPR has passed, and no reply has been filed in the Meta IPR, Petitioner does not sufficiently address how “the requested joinder will not create any additional burden for the Patent Owner or the Board and will not require any additional time or resources.” Pet. Prelim. Reply 1. As pointed out by Patent Owner, “even if this proceeding went forward by essentially ‘picking up’ where the Meta . . . IPR left off, the existing schedule [of the Meta IPR] would need to be pushed back significantly, to allow time after institution for Petitioner[] to depose Patent Owner’s expert and prepare a reply.” PO Prelim. Sur-Reply 2. Because Petitioner does not meaningfully address the impact joinder would have had on the Meta IPR schedule, joinder also would not have been appropriate.” slip op. at 7
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,677,398 - Code200, Uab / Teso LT, Uab et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 12, 2022 · IPR2022-01109 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied joinder and denied institution on all challenged claims and grounds because the petition was time-barred under § 315(b).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“Practice Guide instructs us that a party seeking to maintain multiple challenges to the same patent claims carries a heavy burden of establishing that multiple petitions are necessary. Petitioner contends that Patent Owner has not carried that burden. Joinder Opp. 1. We agree. Petitioner has not explained why the 1492 IPR is an insufficient challenge. It is true that the 135 IPR involves Plamondon, another reference. But Petitioner has not explained how Plamondon differs from Crowds, Border, or MorphMix, or why granting joinder with the 135 IPR would be in the interest of justice, given Petitioner’s involvement managing the1492 IPR challenging substantially the same claims. In the words of our Trial Practice Guide, Petitioner fails to show “why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions if it identifies one petition that satisfies petitioner’s burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” TPG 60. We see no evidence in the record suggesting that The Data Company is unqualified to manage the 135 IPR, or that Petitioner would add anything significant to that proceeding in its understudy role.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barInstitution denied
“III. DENIAL OF INTER PARTES REVIEW It is undisputed that Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’319 patent more than one year prior to filing the Petition in this proceeding. See Joinder Mot. 2; Joinder Opp. 1. Accordingly, in view of the denial of the requested relief of joinder with the 135 IPR, institution of inter partes review as requested by Petitioner is barred by statute. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b). IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. Because Petitioner is barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) from seeking inter partes review of the ’319 patent, we deny the Petition and do not institute review as to any of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“For the reasons described below, we deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. Furthermore, we deny the Petition as time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). We do not reach Patent Owner’s additional contentions including those based on Fintiv or General Plastic.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Not reached
“For the reasons described below, we deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. Furthermore, we deny the Petition as time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). We do not reach Patent Owner’s additional contentions including those based on Fintiv or General Plastic.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,257,319 - Code200, Uab / Teso LT, Uab et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 14, 2022 · IPR2021-01502 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied joinder and denied institution on all challenged claims and grounds because the petition was time-barred under § 315(b).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“Joinder may be authorized when warranted, but the decision to grant joinder is discretionary. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122. We agree with Petitioner that under § 315(b), a one-year bar does not apply when joinder is granted. However, in view of the specific facts of this case, we determine that grant of the joinder motion is not warranted because of prejudice to Patent Owner as well as Petitioner’s unexplained delay in seeking inter partes review. More specifically, allowing joinder would offer Petitioner a second bite at asserting invalidity after the dismissal of Petitioner’s invalidity counterclaims with prejudice in the prior district court action. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s “inconsistent actions” in dismissing the invalidity counterclaims with prejudice “undermine the integrity of the judicial process.” Opp. 7. Furthermore, Petitioner’s joinder attempt “undermine[s]” the prior dismissal with prejudice. Id. Patent Owner continues that Petitioner “now seek[s] a second bite at the invalidity apple.” Id. at 8. We agree that the prior dismissal with prejudice of Petitioner’s invalidity counterclaims weighs heavily in favor of denying joinder in this case.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barInstitution denied
“B. Denial of Inter Partes Review It is undisputed that Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’044 patent more than one year prior to filing the Petition in this proceeding. See Pet. 2. Accordingly, in view of the denial of the requested relief of joinder with IPR2021-00458, institution of inter partes review as requested by Petitioner is barred by statute. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b). VI. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we deny Petitioner’s motion for joinder. Because Petitioner is barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) from seeking inter partes review of the ’044 patent, we deny the Petition and do not institute review as to any of the challenged claims. VII. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder is denied; and FURTHER ORDERED that, the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims and grounds and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 9
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,241,044 - Code200, Uab / Teso LT, Uab et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 14, 2022 · IPR2021-01503 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution
The Board denied joinder and denied institution on all challenged claims and grounds because the petition was barred by § 315(b).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“Joinder may be authorized when warranted, but the decision to grant joinder is discretionary. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122. We agree with Petitioner that a one-year bar does not apply to joinder under § 315(b). However, in view of the specific facts of this case, we determine that the grant of the motion is not warranted because of prejudice to Patent Owner as well as Petitioner’s unexplained delay in seeking inter partes review. More specifically, allowing joinder would offer Petitioner a second bite at asserting invalidity after the previous dismissal with prejudice of Petitioner’s invalidity counterclaims in the District Court action. As such, joinder would not be in the interest of justice and would be prejudicial to Patent Owner under these circumstances. We agree with Patent Owner that the prior dismissal with prejudice of Petitioner’s invalidity counterclaims weighs heavily in favor of denying joinder in this case. Additionally, Petitioner was sued in District Court on the ’866 patent in 2018. Although it could have done so, Petitioner did not file an inter partes challenge in the one-year time frame following the lawsuit’s commencement. Now, several years later, after a dismissal of the District Court litigation with prejudice, Petitioner seeks to challenge the patent by its joinder motion. Petitioner provides no explanation for not filing for review when it could have earlier done so in the one-year window, but now seeks to join a challenge after dismissal of its earlier counterclaims with prejudice— except to argue that there was no delay for the joinder motion under the statute. Petitioner also does not provide an explanation why fairness now requires joinder. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that adding Petitioner to the NetNut 465 IPR would not be in the interests of justice and has not been justified.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDenied
“B. Inter Partes Review Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’866 patent more than one year prior to filing the Petition in this proceeding. See Pet. 2. Accordingly, in view of the denial of the requested relief of joinder with IPR2021-00465, institution of an inter partes review as requested by Petitioner is barred by statute. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b). IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we deny Petitioner’s motion for joinder. Because Petitioner is barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) from inter partes review of the ’866 patent, we do not institute review as to any of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 9
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,742,866 - Blue Coat Systems, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 8, 2016 · IPR2016-00493 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the petition was time-barred under § 315(b); the joinder motion was dismissed as moot.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“II. DISMISSAL OF MOTION FOR JOINDER Because the petition in IPR2016-02000 was denied and inter partes review was not instituted, Petitioner’s Joinder Motion is dismissed as moot. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barInstitution denied
“Petitioner admits that a complaint alleging infringement of the ʼ731 patent was served on Petitioner more than a year before the filing date of the Petition. Pet. 4. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), that is a bar to the institution of inter partes review unless Petitioner’s request for joinder is granted. See id., final sentence. Because we conclude supra that the joinder motion is dismissed, we conclude also that the Petition should be denied as time-barred under § 315(b). B. Denial on the Same Grounds as the ʼ2000 IPR” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,418,731 - Blue Coat Systems, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 8, 2016 · IPR2016-00492 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–18 as time-barred under § 315(b), after dismissing the joinder motion as moot because the related IPR was denied.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDenied
“Petitioner admits that a complaint alleging infringement of the ʼ780 patent was served on Petitioner more than a year before the filing date of the Petition. Pet. 5. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), that is a bar to the institution of inter partes review unless Petitioner’s request for joinder is granted. See id., final sentence. Because we conclude supra that the joinder motion is dismissed, we conclude also that the Petition should be denied as time-barred under § 315(b). B. Denial on the Same Grounds as the ʼ165 IPR” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“II. DISMISSAL OF MOTION FOR JOINDER Because the petition in IPR2016-00165 was denied and inter partes review was not instituted, Petitioner’s Joinder Motion is dismissed as moot. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In view of our determination that the Petition is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), however, we do not need to decide this separate ground for denial urged by Patent Owner. IV. ORDER It is, therefore, ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder is dismissed as moot; FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,804,780
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.