- Lannett Holdings, Inc. v. Astrazeneca ABInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 2, 2016 · IPR2015-01630 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–16 because Petitioner did not show that the petition was timely under § 315(b).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barInstitution denied
“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.”” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied time barInstitution denied
“CONCLUSION Based on evidence of the record, Petitioner has not made sufficient showing that it is not barred from requesting an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a).” slip op. at 9
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,220,767 - Lannett Holdings, Inc. v. Astrazeneca ABInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01629 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–16 because Petitioner failed to show it was not time-barred under § 315(b).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDenied
“status of Petitioner, and not its registered agent for accepting service, that dictates the proper procedure for service of process. Petitioner is a corporation. Ex. 2027. Delaware Title 6, § 18-105, the statute Petitioner relies on, addresses “Service of process on domestic limited liability companies.” Thus, on its face, it does not apply to service on Petitioner, which is not a limited liability company. Petitioner also does not cite any authority under Delaware law applying this statute to a limited-liability-company agent receiving service on behalf of a corporation. We, therefore, are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument, which is based on this inapplicable statute. In Delaware, service of process on a corporation “shall be made by delivering a copy personally to . . . the registered agent of the corporation . . . .” 8 Del. C. § 321. Petitioner does not argue that the July 25, 2014 service fails to comply with this applicable statute. Thus, the mere 5 fact that the Proof of Service shows CSC, and not an individual, as having accepted the service, does not persuade us that service on July 25, 2014 was ineffective.” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,750,237 - Zhejiang Yankon Group, Ltd. v. Cordelia Lighting, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 25, 2015 · IPR2015-01420 · APJ Jacqueline T Harlow · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Zhejiang Yankon Group failed to identify Yankon-US as a real party-in-interest, and a corrected petition would be time-barred.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityInstitution denied rpiDenied
“Because Cordelia provides sufficient rebuttal evidence that reasonably brings into question the accuracy of Yankon-China’s identification of real” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDenied
“E. Corrected Petition Would Be Time-Barred The Petition was accorded a filing date of June 16, 2015. Paper 3, 1. At this stage of the proceeding, correction of the Petition to include Yankon- US as a real party-in-interest would require assignment of a new filing date. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.106(b). Granting Yankon-US a new filing date would be futile in this instance because, even if corrected, the earliest filing date that could be accorded to the Petition would fall outside the one-year time bar for pursuing inter partes review set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). III. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Petition is DENIED and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 19
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,454,204
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.