USPTO Board Holds That Complaint Dismissed Without Prejudice Does Not Bar Inter Partes Review

05 February 2013 PharmaPatents Blog

In a decision granting (in part) a Request for Inter Partes Review, the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) held that an infringement complaint that was dismissed without prejudice did not bar the Request for Inter Partes Review.

The Statute at Issue

The Inter Partes Review statute includes a limitations period measured from service of an infringement complaint against the petitioner. In particular, 35 USC § 315(b) provides:

An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than one 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.

The Procedural Background

In the case at issue, the Patent Owner (BOS GmbH & KG) had filed a complaint against the Taiwanese parent (Macauto Industrial Co., Ltd.) of the Petitioner (Macauto U.S.A.) in April of 2011, which was more than one year before the Request for Inter Partes Review was filed. According to the PTAB decision, the Taiwanese parent moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the action eventually was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation.

(BOS filed another infringement action against the Petitioner and a related Chinese entity (Kunshan Macauto) on May 30, 2012, which was less than one year before the Request for Inter Partes Review was filed.)

The PTAB Analysis

The PTAB interpreted 35 USC § 315(b) as requiring that “the service date of the complaint be more than a year before the petition was filed,” and turned to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to interpret and apply the service requirement.

[T]he infringement suit against Macauto Taiwan was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a), pursuant to a joint stipulation…The Federal Circuit has consistently interpreted the effect of such dismissals as leaving the parties as though the action had never been brought…Accordingly, the dismissal of the earlier action against Macauto Taiwan nullifies the effect of the alleged service of the complaint on Petitioner.

The PTAB therefore concluded that there was no effective service date of the prior complaint on Petitioner, and so 35 USC § 315(b) did not bar the Request for Inter Partes Review.  (Because there was no effective service date, the PTAB did not decide whether service on the Taiwanese parent would have barred the Request by the U.S. Petitioner.)

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Hatch Comments on DNC-Related Construction Projects in Milwaukee
14 June 2019
Milwaukee Business Journal
Bernard Quoted on Debt-Relief Settlement with ITT Tech Lender
14 June 2019
Wall Street Journal
Dodd and Daughter Profiled in Wisconsin Golf
13 June 2019
Wisconsin Golf
Brinckerhoff Comments on SCOTUS Ruling in Patent Case
11 June 2019
Intellectual Property Magazine
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ
Foley's Government Contracts Annual Update
16 October 2019
Liviona, MI