October 19, 2015
Authored and Edited by Alyssa J. Holtslander; Anthony A. Hartmann
In a rare expanded panel majority opinion, the PTAB granted a Request for Rehearing allowing for the institution and joinder of a second IPR petition filed by the same party that corrected an error in a first IPR petition. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd., et al. v. Nidec Motor Corp., IPR2015-00762 (October 5, 2015) (Paper 16) at 9. The majority based its decision on 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which allows “the Director, in his or her discretion, [to] join as a party to that inter partes review any person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314.”
The majority relied on another expanded panel’s majority decision in Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp., IPR2014-00508 (February 12, 2015) (Paper 28) which analyzed the legislative intent of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) and further held that the language of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) regarding “any person who properly files a petition under section 311” does not exclude petitioners that are already a party despite the second petition being potentially time-barred by 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Zhongshan at 3-5. In Target, the majority opinion relied on the use of “any person” in the statute as support that the legislative intent had not excluded the same petitioner. Target at 8. The Zhongshan majority opinion distinguished their decision from other situations in which joinder may be denied because, in this case, the error was not on the merits. Zhongshan at 7-8.
In a further rare occurrence for a PTAB decision, two members of the expanded panel filed a dissent arguing that the majority decisions expands the legislature’s intended scope of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). Zhongshan (dissent) at 1. Specifically, the dissent explained that “any person” in 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) is constrained to those that can be “join[ed] as a party;” thus the statute is limited to the joinder of parties and does not encompass the joinder of issues. Id.. The dissent further explains that the majority’s decisions frustrates the intent of the one-year statutory bar instituted in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) by allowing for potential harassment of patent owners by repeated administrative attacks. Id. at 1-2. This mirrors the rationale of the dissent in Target. Target at 17.
As neither Target nor Zhongshan is precedential, there is no clear indication from the PTAB on the scope of the authority granted by the legislature with respect to joinder of IPR proceedings with different issues, filed by the same party and after the one-year statutory bar.
Copyright © 2015 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. Additional disclaimer information.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
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.