Experience
Microsoft Corp.
VirnetX
Finnegan client VirnetX served Microsoft with a complaint alleging infringement of the challenged patents more than a year before Microsoft filed its three inter partes review (IPR) petitions. However, the litigation was settled and dismissed after trial but before a final decision. Microsoft argued that its petitions were not barred because its counterclaims and affirmative defenses regarding invalidity in the litigation were dismissed “without prejudice.” In its preliminary responses, VirnetX argued that the manner in which counterclaims and affirmative defenses are dismissed is irrelevant for 35 U.S.C. 315(b)’s time bar—it is the infringement allegations that matter. Agreeing with VirnetX, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution, in part, because the infringement allegations in the complaint were dismissed “with prejudice” and the parties were in different relative legal positions than before the complaint was filed.
Microsoft Corp. v. VirnetX, IPR2014-00401, -00405, -00558, PTAB, Judges Easthom, Siu, Tierney
Joinder and IPR institution denied based on time bar
VirnetX Inc.
Microsoft Corp. v. VirnetX Inc.
VirnetX Inc.
Biogen MA Inc.
Microsoft Corporation v. VirnetX, Inc.
VirnetX, Inc.
Finnegan goes three-for-three in IPR non-institution decisions for client inMusic
inMusic Brands, Inc.
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.