Delay in Correcting Disclosure of Real Parties-in-Interest not Procedurally Fatal to IPR Petition

July 25, 2024

Reading Time : 3 min

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted an inter partes review over patent owner’s objections that the petition did not timely identify all real parties-in-interest (RPI) and was filed by a phantom legal entity after petitioner had undergone a corporate reorganization. The PTAB accepted petitioner’s updated mandatory notices that identified the correct RPI, revised the caption, and instituted the IPR proceeding.

On April 19, 2023, petitioner converted from a California corporation to a Delaware limited liability company. The California corporation had been served with an amended complaint on October 24, 2022, and the IPR petition was filed in the name of the California corporation on October 24, 2023. The petition identified the California corporation as the only RPI. On February 7, 2024, through a merger, petitioner became a subsidiary of a parent company. Petitioner filed updated mandatory notices on March 11, 2024, disclosing the changes to its corporate structure and identifying the Delaware limited liability company and the parent company as RPIs. Patent owner argued that the PTAB should not consider the petition because any new or updated petition filed at the time of the updated mandatory notices in the Delaware corporation’s name would have been time-barred and because, at the time the petition was filed, the original petitioner no longer existed as a legal entity. 

To decide whether to accept petitioner’s updated mandatory notices, the board considered whether there had been (1) attempts to circumvent the 35 U.S.C. § 315 bar or estoppel, (2) bad faith, (3) prejudice to patent owner, or (4) gamesmanship. First, the board determined that a petition modified by updated mandatory notices is not time-barred unless any of the new RPIs would have been time-barred at the time the petition was originally filed. Here, there was no allegation that such was the case. Second, patent owner argued that the six-month delay in petitioner filing updated mandatory notices showed bad faith and lack of diligence. The board agreed with petitioner that the delay was merely an error that did not evidence bad faith. Third, patent owner argued that the updated mandatory notices prejudiced patent owner by potentially delaying related district court litigation and causing it to incur additional legal fees to address this issue. The board stated that it did not have sufficient evidence that petitioner’s updated mandatory notices would delay district court proceedings and did not believe that the cost of litigating a good faith dispute sufficiently prejudiced patent owner to warrant denying the petition. Finally, patent owner argued that petitioner was engaged in gamesmanship to hide the existence of other RPIs that might trigger the time bar. The PTAB rejected this argument because there was insufficient evidence that there were any such other RPIs and thus insufficient evidence of any gamesmanship. 

The board then turned to patent owner’s argument that the petition should not be considered because it was filed by the California corporation—a nonexistent legal entity at the time the petition was filed. Patent owner argued that 35 U.S.C. § 311(a), authorizing a person who is not the owner of a patent to petition for IPR, was a jurisdictional statute, and that the board had no jurisdiction over an IPR petition filed by the nonexistent California corporation. The board disagreed, finding no evidence that Congress had intended for § 311(a) to set forth a jurisdictional, rather than merely procedural, requirement. The PTAB concluded that, where there is no allegation that the petitioner is the patent owner, there is insufficient evidence of bad faith, and the California corporation continued to exist as a Delaware corporation, naming the incorrect petitioner was akin to omitting an RPI. As such, the board determined that, the same analysis that applied under § 312(a)(2) applied here, and similarly rejected patent owner’s argument under § 311(a).    

Accordingly, the PTAB accepted petitioner’s updated mandatory notices and instituted the petition on the merits. The board also modified the caption to reflect the Delaware LLC as petitioner.

Practice Tip: When a petitioner’s mandatory notices must be updated, both parties should be careful to analyze whether any previously unnamed parties would affect the analysis under the statutory bar or estoppel provisions. If not, and if there was no bad faith and minimal prejudice to the patent owner, the board is unlikely to deny the petition solely because of petitioner’s failure to name the correct parties.

LifeCore Fitness, LLC v. Woodway USA, Inc., IPR2024-00083, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. May 17, 2024)

 

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

November 5, 2024

The Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s fee award because the district court considered certain information that was not relevant to the question of whether plaintiff’s case was exceptional. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that only those “red flags” that related to the successful Section 101 defense, which served as the basis for the district court’s grant of summary judgment, could be used to show the case was fatally flawed.   

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 1, 2024

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission articulated a bright-line test for patent expert admissibility: to testify from the perspective of a “person of ordinary skill in the art” (POSITA), the expert must at least meet the definition of a POSITA for the patents-in-suit. Absent that level of skill, Kyocera holds that the witness’s testimony is not sufficiently reliable or relevant enough to be relied on by a fact-finder.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 29, 2024

The PTAB denied a petitioner’s motion to compel routine discovery that sought information from a parallel ITC investigation for alleged inconsistent positions taken by patent owner in the IPR. The board found that patent owner had not taken inconsistent positions but warned patent owner that it had an ongoing duty to produce any information inconsistent with arguments made during the present IPR, even if that information related to arguments patent owner had dropped at the ITC.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 11, 2024

The Central District of California ruled that the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) applies to all three prongs of a false patent marking claim, including the third prong, competitive injury. In doing so, took a clear stand on an issue with a nationwide split among district courts.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 10, 2024

In a patent case containing a variety of federal and state law claims, the District of Massachusetts retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims even after all the federal law claims were dismissed.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 3, 2024

The Federal Circuit recently upheld the USPTO’s authority under the estoppel provision 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) to prohibit a patent owner from obtaining patent claims that are not patentably distinct from claims previously declared unpatentable in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. However, the court clarified that the regulation applies only to new claims or amended claims, not previously issued claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 27, 2024

In Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit held that an expert must meet the definition of a “person of ordinary skill in the art” of the asserted patents in order to opine on infringement, among other issues. This new bright-line test and the underlying rationale, however, raised several new questions regarding expert admissibility. SeeFederal Circuit: Narrow Definition of Skill in the Art Dooms Expert’s Testimony” and “Grappling With A Bright-Line Patent Expert Admissibility Test.” The Federal Circuit recently addressed one of those questions, namely whether an expert must have acquired the requisite level of skill as of the time of the invention or whether it is sufficient for an expert to acquire that knowledge at a later date.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 23, 2024

The Director of the USPTO initiated sua sponte review of a PTAB panel’s decision to impose sanctions based on patentee’s conduct during IPR proceedings. The PTAB cancelled all of patentee’s claims, including those not unpatentable on the merits, after finding that patentee deliberately withheld data relevant to the patentability of the claims at issue. In her review, the Director addressed which regulations are implicated upon a party’s misconduct during AIA proceedings and addressed whether entry of judgment in the trial was an appropriate sanction.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.