The Latest Twist In The Apple v. VirnetX IPRs: Appeals Court Issues Temporary Stay

10 March 2016 PTAB Trial Insights Blog

On March 7, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued a temporary stay to permit briefing by the parties on the question of whether the PTAB properly ruled that Apple could use the joinder process in Mangrove Capital’s IPR against VirnetX to avoid the one-year bar that prevents a litigation defendant like Apple from filing its own IPR. See “High Stakes Race Between Apple & VirnetX: Will PTAB Trump The Texas Jury’s Award of $625M?”

The order requires Apple and VirnetX to file briefs by March 14 and 17, respectively. The grant of the temporary stay does not mean that the Federal Circuit will find that the joinder decision by the PTAB was improper, but the stay provides a temporary halt to the IPR proceedings in order to permit the appeals court to rule on whether or not the joinder decision allowing Apple to enter the IPR proceedings was proper or not.

VirnetX filed a Petition For a Writ of Mandamus on March 4th (laying out an extensive argument against the PTAB’s decision to allow Apple’s joinder in the IPRs), which led to the above temporary stay and briefing order from the Federal Circuit. It is likely that the Federal Circuit will very promptly issue a decision, given that the AIA provides a statutory requirement for the PTAB to complete IPRs within a maximum of 18 months from institution date. The PTAB has allowed joinder by parties in other situations similar to Apple’s, where the particular party would otherwise have been time barred as a result of litigation. This will be the first time for the Federal Circuit to address the question of joinder in an IPR. Stay tuned for further developments.

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