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

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Lecture

Resolving Patent Suits Without Settlement Payments

September 3, 2026

Virtual

Webinar

Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

July 8, 2026

Webinar

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