March 24, 2020
Authored and Edited by Max Mauldin; Caitlin E. O'Connell; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, No. 2018-1400 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, 2020) the Federal Circuit found that the text of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) does not authorize same-party or new issue joinder to an existing IPR.
Windy City filed suit against Facebook alleging infringement of several of its patents. Facebook timely filed IPR petitions challenging certain claims of each of the asserted patents. More than one year after service of the complaint Facebook filed new IPR petitions challenging additional claims from the same patents, along with motions for joinder to the original IPRs. The Board instituted Facebook’s IPRs and granted the motions for joinder. After the Board issued its final written decision finding some challenged claims obvious, Windy City appealed the Board’s decisions.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), the Director may, in his or her discretion, join any person to an IPR upon petition. On appeal, Windy City argued that joinder was not proper because 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) does not permit same-party joinder or joinder of new claims or new grounds. Facebook argued that joinder was proper because “any person” could be interpreted to broadly include joining the same party and that new issue joinder permits efficiency. The Federal Circuit sided with Windy City, finding that the language of § 315(c) is clearly and unambiguously does not authorize same-party or new issue joinder. For more detailed analysis of this case and its impact on post-grant proceedings, please see The Impact of the Federal Circuit’s Decision in Facebook v. Windy City on PTAB Practice: No Same Party or Issue Joinder and No Deference to POP Decisions on Statutory Interpretation on Finnegan’s AIA Blog.
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.
Conference
2024 Licensing Executives Society USA – Canada Annual Meeting
October 20-23, 2024
New Orleans
Conference
4th Annual Passport to Proficiency on the Essentials of Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA
October 8-24, 2024
Virtual
Hybrid Conference
2024 Patent Law Institute: Critical Issues & Best Practices
September 30 - October 1, 2024
New York
Hybrid Conference
2024 New York Intellectual Property Law Institute
September 30 - October 1, 2024
New York
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.