• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All

Search the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

6 results

41 Notice Other: DECISION Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 USC § 314 Granting Motion for Joinder 35 USC § 315c 37 CFR § 42122 Entered into IPR2022 01199 January 4, 2022

Document IPR2022-00182, No. 41 Notice Other - DECISION Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 USC § 314 Granting Motion for Joinder 35 USC § 315c 37 CFR § 42122 Entered into IPR2022 0119...
... Provisions Regarding joinder, § 315(c) permits joinder as a party and reads as follows: If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any person ...
Additionally, the “AIA was designed to encourage the filing of meritorious patentability challenges, by any person who is not the patent 40 IPR2022-01199 Patent 9,917,856 B2 owner, in an effort to further improve patent quality.” ...
But Patent Owner identifies no evidence of any cooperation, collaboration, or collusion between Petitioner and PAN (or anyone else) to take collective action to “crush” or otherwise injure Patent Owner’s business.
5 n.1. Petitioner also explains that Dr. Jacobson’s declaration differs from Dr. Weissman’s declaration because Dr. Jacobson’s declaration “has been updated to list” Dr. Jacobson’s “qualifications and personal experience.” Id. Petitioner ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

12 Institution Decision Joined: Institution Decision Grant

Document IPR2022-01151, No. 12 Institution Decision Joined - Institution Decision Grant (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2023)
... Provisions Regarding joinder, § 315(c) permits joinder as a party and reads as follows: If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any person ...
Additionally, the “AIA was designed to encourage the filing of meritorious patentability challenges, by any person who is not the patent owner, in an effort to further improve patent quality.” Coalition for Affordable Drugs VI, LLC v. Celgene ...
But Patent Owner identifies no evidence of any cooperation, collaboration, or collusion between Petitioner and PAN (or anyone else) to take collective action to “crush” or otherwise 41 IPR2022-01151 Patent 9,917,856 B2 injure Patent ...
On appeal, the Federal Circuit considered whether § 315(c) authorizes (1) same-party joinder, i.e., “the joinder of a person as a party to a proceeding in which it is already a party,” and (2) new-issue joinder, e.g., the joinder of “new claims ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

39 Order on Motion: DECISION Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 USC sec 314 Granting Motion for Joinder 35 USC sec 315 c 37 CFR sec 42122

Document IPR2022-00182, No. 39 Order on Motion - DECISION Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 USC sec 314 Granting Motion for Joinder 35 USC sec 315 c 37 CFR sec 42122 (P.T.A.B. Jan....
... Provisions Regarding joinder, § 315(c) permits joinder as a party and reads as follows: If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any person ...
Additionally, the “AIA was designed to encourage the filing of meritorious patentability challenges, by any person who is not the patent owner, in an effort to further improve patent quality.” Coalition for Affordable Drugs VI, LLC v. Celgene ...
But Patent Owner identifies no evidence of any cooperation, collaboration, or collusion between Petitioner and PAN (or anyone else) to take collective action to “crush” or otherwise 41 IPR2022-01151 Patent 9,917,856 B2 injure Patent ...
On appeal, the Federal Circuit considered whether § 315(c) authorizes (1) same-party joinder, i.e., “the joinder of a person as a party to a proceeding in which it is already a party,” and (2) new-issue joinder, e.g., the joinder of “new claims ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

13 Institution Decision Joined: Institution Decision Joined

Document IPR2022-01199, No. 13 Institution Decision Joined - Institution Decision Joined (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2023)
... Provisions Regarding joinder, § 315(c) permits joinder as a party and reads as follows: If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any person ...
Additionally, the “AIA was designed to encourage the filing of meritorious patentability challenges, by any person who is not the patent 40 IPR2022-01199 Patent 9,917,856 B2 owner, in an effort to further improve patent quality.” ...
But Patent Owner identifies no evidence of any cooperation, collaboration, or collusion between Petitioner and PAN (or anyone else) to take collective action to “crush” or otherwise injure Patent Owner’s business.
5 n.1. Petitioner also explains that Dr. Jacobson’s declaration differs from Dr. Weissman’s declaration because Dr. Jacobson’s declaration “has been updated to list” Dr. Jacobson’s “qualifications and personal experience.” Id. Petitioner ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

32 Order: Decision Granting in Part Patent Owners Motion to Dismiss

Document IPR2017-00572, No. 32 Order - Decision Granting in Part Patent Owners Motion to Dismiss (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2017)
... or injury; 3) whether there are at least two parties involved in the proceeding; 4) whether the attendance of the parties is required; 5) whether one of the parties is prosecuting a claim against the other; [and] 6) whether the injured ...
Petitioner also argues that “[t]he explicit language of [35 U.S.C. § 311] indicates that [an inter partes review] is a challenge to the patent, not the patent owner,” making it “a proceeding in rem, not in personam.” Opp. 10.
Although § 311 does say, as Petitioner argues, that “a person . . . may file with the Office a petition to institute an inter partes review of the patent,” the Supreme Court has described inter partes reviews as “hybrid proceeding[s]” with both “adjudicatory characteristics [that] make these agency ...
Given the presence of “adjudicatory characteristics” that were found to make agency proceedings similar to civil litigation in FMC and Vas-Cath, we consider it more likely that inter partes reviews have sufficient in personam character for ...
... relies on a statement in Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel that, “where sovereign immunity is asserted, and the claims of the sovereign are not frivolous, dismissal of the action must be ordered where there is a potential for injury ...
Accordingly, Patent Owner argues that the only way to prevent “injury to the interests of the absent sovereign” is to dismiss the action entirely.
In both of those decisions, the court considered the proper application of the Rule 19(b) factors1 rather than relying solely on the 1 Rule 19(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]f a person who is required to be joined ...
... person’s absence might prejudice that person or the existing parties; (2) the extent to which any prejudice could be lessened or avoid by: (A) protective provisions in the judgment; (B) shaping the relief; or (C) other measures; (3) whether ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets

36 Order: Decision Granting in Part Patent Owners Motion to Dismiss

Document IPR2016-01914, No. 36 Order - Decision Granting in Part Patent Owners Motion to Dismiss (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2017)
... or injury; 3) whether there are at least two parties involved in the proceeding; 4) whether the attendance of the parties is required; 5) whether one of the parties is prosecuting a claim against the other; [and] 6) whether the injured ...
Petitioner also argues that “[t]he explicit language of [35 U.S.C. § 311] indicates that [an inter partes review] is a challenge to the patent, not the patent owner,” making it “a proceeding in rem, not in personam.” Opp. 10.
Although § 311 does say, as Petitioner argues, that “a person . . . may file with the Office a petition to institute an inter partes review of the patent,” the Supreme Court has described inter partes reviews as “hybrid proceeding[s]” with both “adjudicatory characteristics [that] make these agency ...
Given the presence of “adjudicatory characteristics” that were found to make agency proceedings similar to civil litigation in FMC and Vas-Cath, we consider it more likely that inter partes reviews have sufficient in personam character for ...
... of Philippines v. Pimentel that, “where sovereign immunity is 12 IPR2016-01914 Patent 8,394,618 B2 asserted, and the claims of the sovereign are not frivolous, dismissal of the action must be ordered where there is a potential for injury ...
Accordingly, Patent Owner argues that the only way to prevent “injury to the interests of the absent sovereign” is to dismiss the action entirely.
See, e.g., Dainippon Screen Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. CFMT, Inc., 142 F.3d 1266, 1272–73 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (conducting Rule 19(b) analysis where one defendant was beyond reach of district court’s personal jurisdiction).
1 Rule 19(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]f a person who is required to be joined if feasible cannot be joined, the court must determine whether, in equity and good conscience, the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed.” It goes on to state four ...
cite Cite Document
+ More Snippets