December 16, 2020
Authored and Edited by Y. Leon Lin; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
On December 04, 2020, the PTAB designated as precedential its institution decision in Sharkninja Operating LLC, et al. v. iRobot Corporation, IPR2020-00734, Paper No. 11 (PTAB Oct. 06, 2020).
Patent Owner, iRobot, argued in its Preliminary Response that institution of Petitioner SharkNinja’s IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,921,586 should be denied under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) because the petition failed to name all real parties-in-interest (“RPI”). Specifically, Patent Owner alleged that JS Global Lifestyle is the ultimate corporate parent for all petitioner parties and argued overlapping management demonstrated JS Global Lifestyle’s involvement in the asserted IPR proceeding.
The Board determined that a resolution of the RPI dispute was unnecessary at the institution stage, citing its previous precedential decision in Lumentum Holdings, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, IPR2015-00739, Paper 38 at 6 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2016), that a petition does not require a correct identification of all RPIs if the RPI issue would not affect whether institution should be granted.
In the case at hand, iRobot did not allege that the failure to identify all RPIs would result in the termination of the proceeding or denial of institution of review for any reason other than for the alleged failure of a procedural requirement that can be corrected in a later amendment. Furthermore, the Board found that JS Global Lifestyle was not barred or estopped from joining the proceeding, Petitioner offered to add its parent company if it would avoid the dispute, and there was no evidence that Petitioner purposefully omitted naming JS Global Lifestyle to gain an advantage.
Given these facts, the Board determined that resolution of such non-impactful RPI issues would have been a lengthy exercise that was unnecessary for the purposes of granting or denying institution. Therefore, in the interest of judicial efficiency, the Board refused to consider the RPI issues and granted the institution decision on the basis that SharkNinja showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim in its petition.
Copyright © 2020 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.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
Conference
Boston Intellectual Property Law Association 4th Annual Symposium
April 10-11, 2024
Boston
Conference
Best Practices in Intellectual Property– A Decade of Dedication to IP Excellence
April 8-9, 2024
Tel Aviv
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.