PTAB: One-Year Deadline on IPR Petitions Not Always Applicable

08 January 2014 IP Litigation Current Blog

Defendants in district court litigation are generally aware that a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) must be filed within the statutory one-year window triggered by service of a complaint for infringement. What is less well known is that not all such complaints will trigger the one-year window.  Recent Board decisions conclude that the one-year window is not triggered by the service of a complaint ultimately dismissed without prejudice.

In a seemingly unambiguous manner, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) states:

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.

However, over the past year, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board has, on at least three occasions, found that § 315(b)’s one-year deadline does not apply where service of a complaint occurred more than a year ago in an action that was dismissed without prejudice.†

In its most recent decision, the Board denied a patent owner’s request for rehearing of the decision to institute IPR. Oracle Corp., et al., v. Click-to-Call Techs. LP, IPR2013-00312, Paper 40 (PTAB Dec. 18, 2013). As grounds for its rehearing request, the patent owner had argued, inter alia, that certain of the petitioners were barred under § 315(b), because they had been served with an infringement complaint back in 2001. That lawsuit was, however, dismissed without prejudice in 2003. Despite the passage of twelve years (which included an intervening ex parte reexamination of the patent at issue), the Board described how “both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Circuit precedent treat a dismissal without prejudice as something that, de jure, never existed . . . leaving the parties in the same legal position as if the underlying complaint had never been served.” Therefore the Board found that the petitioner was not barred under § 315(b).

The Board’s interpretation of § 315(b) leaves open the possibility for patent challengers to pursue an IPR petition well more than one year after the service of a complaint, so long as service occurred in an action that was dismissed without prejudice – a situation that could occur, e.g., where a patent owner has filed serial infringement actions.

Oracle Corp., et al., v. Click-to-Call Techs. LP, IPR2013-00312, Paper 40 (PTAB Dec. 18, 2013); BAE Sys. Info & Elec. Sys. Integration, Inc. v. Cheetah Omni, LLC, IPR2013-00175, Paper 15 (PTAB Jul. 3, 2013); Macauto U.S.A. v. BOS GmbH & KG, IPR2012-00004, Paper 18 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2013).

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