- Commscope, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · 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 denialPatents in suitUS 8,462,835 - 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 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Memoryweb, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 17, 2022 · IPR2022-00885 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the IPR petition was filed less than nine months after the patent issued and before termination of the concurrent PGR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied time barInstitution denied
“either—(1) the date that is 9 months after the grant of a patent; or (2) if a post-grant review is instituted under chapter 32, the date of the termination of such post-grant review.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(c). Similarly, our rules require that, for patents described in section 3(n)(1) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011) (“AIA”), a petition for inter partes review must be filed no earlier than nine months after the date of the grant of the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.102(a)(1). Patents subject to the AIA first-inventor-to file provisions are those that issue from applications “that contain or contained at any time—” slip op. at 6
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,163,823 - Commscope, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 19, 2022 · IPR2022-00352 · APJ Joni Y Chang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because time-barred 2Wire was an RPI and was in privity with CommScope under § 315(b).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barDenied
“It is undisputed that 2Wire is time-barred under § 315(b) because 2Wire was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’835 patent 12 on February 7, 2014, more than one year before December 31, 2021, the filing date of the Petition. Pet. 65; Ex. 1034; Prelim. Resp. 12. CommScope identifies ARRIS Solutions as an RPI to this IPR proceeding and confirms that “2Wire, Inc. was merged into ARRIS Solutions, Inc.” Paper 7, 2. Indeed, 2Wire’s Amended Corporate Disclosure Statement filed in the Delaware case indicates that “the undersigned counsel of record for 2Wire, Inc. certifies that 2Wire, Inc. has been merged to form ARRIS Solutions, Inc.” and that “[t]his name change is the result of a merger . . . that became effective January 1, 2017.” Ex. 2009, 1. Moreover, CommScope acknowledges that 2Wire is “CommScope’s predecessor-in-interest in the District of Delaware,” and that “[o]n April 4, 2019, CommScope Holding Company, Inc.[, an RPI identified by Petitioner,] acquired the successor-ininterest of 2 Wire.” Ex. 2035, 5; Pet. 64. In sum, CommScope identifies ARRIS Solutions as an RPI in this IPR proceeding and 2Wire merged with ARRIS Solutions. As a result, we are persuaded that 2Wire is an RPI in this IPR proceeding. Accordingly, the Petition is time-barred under § 315(b). See Power Integrations, Inc., 926 F.3d at 1310, 1318 (holding that the IPR Petition was time-barred under § 315(b) because time-barred entity Fairchild, which had merged with the petitioner, was an RPI at the time of institution).” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner
“on February 7, 2014, more than one year before December 31, 2021, the filing date of the Petition. Pet. 65; Ex. 1034; Prelim. Resp. 12. CommScope identifies ARRIS Solutions as an RPI to this IPR proceeding and confirms that “2Wire, Inc. was merged into ARRIS Solutions, Inc.” Paper 7, 2. Indeed, 2Wire’s Amended Corporate Disclosure Statement filed in the Delaware case indicates that “the undersigned counsel of record for 2Wire, Inc. certifies that 2Wire, Inc. has been merged to form ARRIS Solutions, Inc.” and that “[t]his name change is the result of a merger . . . that became effective January 1, 2017.” Ex. 2009, 1. Moreover, CommScope acknowledges that 2Wire is “CommScope’s predecessor-in-interest in the District of Delaware,” and that “[o]n April 4, 2019, CommScope Holding Company, Inc.[, an RPI identified by Petitioner,] acquired the successor-ininterest of 2 Wire.” Ex. 2035, 5; Pet. 64. In sum, CommScope identifies ARRIS Solutions as an RPI in this IPR proceeding and 2Wire merged with ARRIS Solutions. As a result, we are persuaded that 2Wire is an RPI in this IPR proceeding. Accordingly, the Petition is time-barred under § 315(b). See Power Integrations, Inc., 926 F.3d at 1310, 1318 (holding that the IPR Petition was time-barred under § 315(b) because time-barred entity Fairchild, which had merged with the petitioner, was an RPI at the time of institution).” slip op. at 13
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,462,835 - Iko Industries, Inc. / Iko Industries Ltd. v. Kirsch Research And Development, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 20, 2022 · IPR2022-00416 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because IKO Industries, Inc. and real party in interest Tarco were served more than one year before the petition, barring review under § 315(b).
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner. Despite Petitioner’s “certif[ication],” quoted by Patent Owner in the Preliminary Response, that “Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified herein” (Pet. 2), the uncontroverted evidence before us demonstrates otherwise. As Patent Owner points out, the January 7, 2022, filing date of the Petition is more than twenty months after both Petitioner IKO Industries, Inc. and real party in interest Tarco were served in the IKO and Tarco lawsuits, respectively. See Exs. 2003, 2005.1” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,308,482 - Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 24, 2022 · PGR2022-00003 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · PGR · Institution
The Board denied Apple’s untimely joinder motion and denied institution because the petition was filed outside the nine-month PGR filing period.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“motion under§ 42.22, no later than one month after the institution date of any post-grant review for which joinder is requested.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.222(b). Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder was filed October 20, 2021, which is more than one month after the Board instituted post-grant review in the Google PGR on July 23, 2021. Petitioner, however, argues that special circumstances warrant that the Board exercise its discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5 to waive the one-month joinder period. Mot. 3–6.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“B. Eligibility for Post-Grant Review under 35 U.S.C. § 321 Institution of post-grant review is barred when a petition is filed more than 9 months after the challenged patent is granted. 35 U.S.C. § 321(c). The ’046 patent issued on March 24, 2020 (see Ex. 1001, code (45)), and the Petition in this proceeding was accorded a filing date of October 20, 2021 (see Paper 1). Thus, the Petition was filed outside the 9-month statutory period for requesting post-grant review under § 321(c). Accordingly, in view of our decision to deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder, we deny the Petition because it was not filed within the time limit imposed under 35 U.S.C. § 321(c).” slip op. at 8
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,600,046 - 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
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.