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

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Illuminating the Section 315(b) Time-Bar on IPR Petitions

September 7, 2018

Authored and Edited by Pejmon Pashai; Samhitha M. Medatia; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

In Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Iancu, Nos. 17-1629, 17-1631, 17-1633 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018), the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s determination that IPR petitioner Liown Electronics Co., Ltd. was not time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and affirmed the Board’s determination that certain claims of Luminara’s patents covering flameless candles were unpatentable for obviousness.

As the Court held in Click-to-Call, a party is time-barred from filing an IPR petition more than one year after being served with a complaint for patent infringement, even if the complaint was dismissed voluntarily and without prejudice. Liown was served with a complaint alleging patent infringement of one of the challenged patents more than a year before filing its IPR petition, although the complaint was later voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, the Court held that the time-bar precluded Liown’s IPR petition and vacated the Board’s determination on this patent.

The Court also found that substantial evidence supported the Board’s obviousness determinations on the remaining patents, and rejected Luminara’s argument that it was not afforded proper notice of the Board’s theory of obviousness. 

Tags

jurisdiction, Obviousness (35 USC § 103), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), time-bar

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Contacts

Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2018 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. 

Related Insights

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

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

May 26, 2026

Reception

12th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala

May 21, 2026

Atlanta

Conference

BIA Start-up Festival

May 21, 2026

London

At the PTAB Blog

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

May 20, 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