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

IPR: Joinder of Proceedings Not Parties

June 14, 2013

Authored and Edited by Jeffrey A. Berkowitz; Adriana L. Burgy

On June 5, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) entered an order denying a motion seeking to join two additional parties, as petitioners and real parties-in-interest, that were not parties to the inter partes review (“IPR”) petition as originally filed (Case CBM2013-00014; Patent 6.625,682). According to the Board, there is no support in the AIA statute or rules for joining parties and instead, Congress provided for joinder of proceedings under § 325(c). Under the Board’s rationale, the statutory framework provides for “the situation where a party might wish to join an additional petition with an already instituted proceeding, and provides a way to do so.” To join additional parties to an existing proceeding, the Board indicates is a matter of first impression. Interestingly, by not having parties join an IPR, some courts weigh this factor into their determination of whether to grant a stay pending an IPR.

For example, in Semiconductor Energy Lab Co., Ltd. v. Chimei Innolux Corp., the Central District Court of California explained that “the estoppel effect of inter partes review carries less weight when there are several defendants that are not parties to, and thus are not bound by, the estoppel effects of the proceeding.” No. SACV 12-0021 JST (JPRx), 2012 WL 7170593, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2012). And because, the defendants in Semiconductor who did not file the IPR petition agreed to be bound by the estoppel provisions of the IPR proceeding, the court gave the estoppel full weight in its determination. In other instances, the estoppel effect has not been give full weight because certain defendants were not parties to the IPR. Pi-Net Int’l, Inc. v. The Hertz Corp., et al., CV 12-10012 PSG (JEMx), CV 12-4270 PSG (JEMx), CV 12-4036 PSG (JEMx) (C.D. Cal. June 5, 2013).

Albeit whether all defendants are parties to the IPR proceeding is one of the factors courts evaluate in determining whether to grant a stay pending an IPR, it will be interesting to see how this plays out over time and how broad of an application occurs.

Tags

estoppel, motion to stay

Contacts

Jeffrey A. Berkowitz
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2710
Email

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

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Lecture

Resolving Patent Suits Without Settlement Payments

September 3, 2026

Virtual

Webinar

Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights

July 15, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for March–May 2026

July 2, 2026

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Deadline Evolution: Director Extends Deadline for Requesting Director Review of Institution Grants to 30 Days

June 30, 2026

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: May 2026

June 30, 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