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

Concerns Raised Regarding PTAB Rules on Joinder and Expanded Panels

September 01, 2017

Authored and Edited by Paula E. Miller; Jason E. Stach

In Nidec Motor Co. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., No. 16-2321 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) decision that claims directed to a low-noise HVAC system were invalid as obvious.  In doing so, Judges Dyk and Wallach issued a concurring opinion calling into question the PTAB’s view that the joinder provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) allows a petitioner to add time-barred new issues to its own timely-filed inter partes review.  The judges also questioned whether the PTAB may properly achieve uniformity in its decisions by expanding its panels, adding judges to the panels in the hope that those judges will tip the balance toward a different result than the original panel.  

Tags

joinder, Obviousness (35 USC § 103), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

Related Practices

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Related Industries

Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials

Manufacturing

Contacts

Jason E. Stach
Partner
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6428
Email

Copyright © 2017 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

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

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

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

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

May 20, 2026

Conference

19th Annual Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation in Europe

May 19-20, 2026

Amsterdam

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