The one-year rule, codified in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), bars a party from filing an inter partes review (IPR) petition challenging the validity of a patent’s claims “more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner . . . is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” Patent Owners having brought a district court action against infringers start this one-year clock by serving the complaint, or by filing a notice of waiver with the court.
A recent Institution Decision in IPR2015-00056 clarifies, however, that service with an International Trade Commission (ITC) complaint does not trigger the one-year rule. IPR2015-00056, Paper No. 10. In IPR2015-00056, the Patent Owner argued that the IPR was barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because Petitioner was served with a complaint in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-895 more than one year before the Petition was filed. The Board rejected the Patent Owner’s argument, explaining that “[t]he phrase ‘served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent’ means a complaint in a civil action for patent infringement, not in an arbitral or administrative proceeding.” Citing Amkor Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., IPR2013-00242, slip op. at 6–18 (PTAB, Jan. 31, 2014) (Paper 98), the Board reasoned that “because the term ‘action’ in the caption to § 315(b), as well as the phrase ‘served with a complaint,’ connote a civil action, and because Congress used different language to identify or encompass proceedings before the ITC,” the provision should not apply to ITC proceedings.
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.
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in February 2024
April 16, 2024
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
April 12, 2024
Conference
Best Practices in Intellectual Property– A Decade of Dedication to IP Excellence
April 8-9, 2024
Tel Aviv
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
April 4, 2024
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.