直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

At the PTAB Blog

Avoiding the IPR One-Year Time Bar

September 10, 2013

The AIA sets a one year deadline from the date of service of a complaint to file a petition for inter partes review (IPR) of an asserted patent. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); see also 37 C.F.R. 42.101(b). The one-year bar, however, does not apply when another party joins an existing IPR. See 35 U.S.C. § 315 (c). In addition, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has held that the one-year bar does not apply when joining two petitions by the same party where one petition is filed within the deadline and the other is not. See Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn Inc., IPR2013-00109, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2013).

A party can request joinder by filing a motion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.22 no later than one month after the PTAB institutes the IPR for which joinder is requested. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) and § 42.222(b). A motion for joinder should: (1) set forth the reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and discovery may be simplified. See FAQ H5 on the Board’s website at http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/prps.jsp. The decision to grant joinder is discretionary. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).

The PTAB recently reached opposite results on two motions for joinder with the same IPR. In Sony Corp. of America v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc. IPR2013-00386, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. July 29, 2013), the PTAB denied Sony’s joinder motion because Sony’s IPR Petition raised numerous substantive issues not before the PTAB in the initial IPR, and joinder would cause lengthy delays to the ongoing IPR. In contrast, in Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc. IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. July 29, 2013), the PTAB granted Dell’s joinder motion because it did not raise any new issues, and would only minimally impact the existing proceeding.

Thus, to succeed on a joinder motion, a petitioner should avoid raising new issues that might complicate or delay an existing proceeding.

Tags

joinder

Copyright © 2013 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. 

Related Insights

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

Reception

12th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala

May 21, 2026

Atlanta

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Webinar

Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement

May 18, 2026

Webinar

Conference

Best Practices and Tech in Intellectual Property Conference 2026

May 17, 2026

Tel Aviv

Articles

COPPA’s Amended Rule Is Now in Full Effect: What Operators Need to Know

May 15, 2026

Seminar

IP Strategy at the Crossroads: Technology, Enforcement, and Contracts

May 15, 2026

Taipei

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms § 102(b) Invalidity; Source Code Commands Are Not Hearsay

May 14, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP