• Commscope, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2022 · IPR2022-01443 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because CommScope’s petition was time-barred under § 315(b), and denied joinder because the IPR it sought to join had been terminated.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDenied

    “Further, we effectively maintain the Board’s holding that CommScope’s first petition remains time-barred. For the same reasons, the Petition in this proceeding is also time-barred, and institution is denied. See IPR2022-00352, Paper 13.” slip op. at 4

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied

    “In this proceeding, Petitioner relies on its request to join the ’471 IPR to avoid the time bar in § 315(b). Pet. 68 (“[B]ecause CommScope will file a motion for joinder with the Nokia IPR, the time-bar set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) does not apply to this petition.”). However, the Board terminated the ’471 IPR based on settlement between the parties, noting the Board’s policy goal of fostering settlements. IPR2022-00471, Paper 41. There is no pending proceeding in the ’471 IPR for Petitioner to join. As a result, Petitioner’s request to join the ’471 IPR is denied.” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,462,835
• Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 9, 2019 · IPR2019-00032 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Hewlett Packard Enterprise had previously filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim, triggering the § 315(a)(1) bar.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barInstitution denied

    “Action,” bars institution of an inter partes review when a petitioner filed a civil action challenging the validity of a claim of a patent before the date on which that petitioner filed a petition requesting an inter partes review of that patent. 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1). Section 315(a)(1) does not include an exception for a civil action that was dismissed without prejudice. Id.; see Click-to-Call, 899 F.3d at 1330. And Congress demonstrated that it knew how to provide an exception to a statutory bar by including an exception to the § 315(b) time bar for a joinder request. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); see Click-to- Call, 899 F.3d at 1331. Thus, Congress could have included an exception to the § 315(a)(1) bar for a civil action that was dismissed without prejudice, but did not. 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1); see Click-to-Call, 899 F.3d at 1331.” slip op. at 6

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,155,012

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.