February 10, 2022
Authored and Edited by Marcelo M. Barros; Shannon M. Patrick; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
In a Precedential Opinion Panel, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that confirmation of payment of fees via wire transfer was sufficient to establish a filing date for a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”). In Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC, IPR2021-00330, (PTAB Jan. 14, 2022) (Paper 20), the panel dealt with the issue of what counts as sufficient evidence of compliance with the relevant rules governing IPR fee payments - 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1) and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.103(a)-(b).
To avoid a 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) time-bar, Toshiba filed a Motion to Correct Filing Date, requesting the filing date of their petition be pushed back five days. Toshiba argued that all statutory and regulatory requirements for filing the IPR petition were met on the earlier date, when the wire transfer of fees was shown as “Completed” and “Successful” by the Fedwire system. In response, Monument Peak Ventures argued Toshiba failed to show that the USPTO “received” the payment before the time bar under § 315(b) took effect.
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 312(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.103, the required filing fee must “accompany” a petition and no filing date will be “accorded … until full payment is received.” The panel held that the Fedwire confirmation was sufficient evidence that the fee “accompanied” the IPR petition because Toshiba “did everything in its power to pay the fee as instructed, and that the fee transfer was successful.” The panel also held that the result complies with Article 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code, which states that an originator of a funds transfer pays the beneficiary once the beneficiary’s bank accepts the transfer.
Based on these determinations, the Panel granted the Request for Rehearing and vacated the Board’s decision denying institution; however, the petition was ultimately denied based on an intervening Federal Circuit Rule 36 judgment affirming a finding that all challenged claims were invalid.
Copyright © 2022 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. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
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
May 20, 2026
Conference
19th Annual Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation in Europe
May 19-20, 2026
Amsterdam
Webinar
Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement
May 18, 2026
Webinar
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.