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

PTAB Stays Concurrent Inter Partes Reexamination in Favor of IPR of Same Patent

April 04, 2013

In CBS Interactive Inc. et al. v. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, IPR2013-00033 (Nov. 6. 2012) (Paper No. 15), the Board ordered a stay in a concurrent inter partes reexamination proceeding, pending termination or completion of the inter partes review. On October 25, 2012, the petitioners requested inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,155,241 (“the ’241 patent”). An inter partes reexamination of the ’241 patent was pending at the time the petition was filed. The Board noted that, while it ordinarily would not stay a reexamination proceeding, conducting the reexamination concurrently with inter partes review would duplicate efforts within the USPTO and could result in inconsistencies between the proceedings.

The Board pointed to several factors to support its decision. First, the Board noted that while all of the claims being challenged in the IPR proceeding are different than those subject to reexamination, the patentability of the independent claims would be determined in both proceedings. The Board expressed concern that since all of the challenged clams depend from the reexamination claims, any amendment in the reexamination could change the scope of the challenged claims during the IPR. The Board was also persuaded by the fact that the two proceedings share similar grounds of challenge based on the same prior art and that four of the five Petitioners are also the requesters who filed the reexamination request. Noting that the Board is required to make a determination whether to institute an inter partes proceeding within three months of receiving a preliminary response from the Patent Owner under Section 314(b) and issue a final determination within one year of institution under Section 316(a)(11), the Board concluded that any decision by the Board with respect to patentability will likely simplify the issues in the reexamination. Accordingly, the Board exercised its discretion and ordered a stay in the concurrent reexamination proceeding, pending the termination or completion of inter partes review.

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

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Conference

Georgia Life Sciences Summit 2026

August 25-26, 2026

Sandy Springs

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Articles

California Reaches Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with General Motors Over Driver Data

June 4, 2026

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

Articles

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

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

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

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