December 16, 2019
Authored and Edited by Forrest A. Jones; Samhitha Muralidhar Medatia; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Game and Technology Co., LTD. v. Wargaming Group Ltd., No. 2019-1171 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 19, 2019), the Federal Circuit found that while the PTAB must consider independently what counts as proper service to trigger 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)’s one-year time bar on IPR petitions, here GAT had waived its time-bar arguments.
More than a year before the IPR petition at issue was filed, GAT twice attempted to serve a complaint on Wargaming alleging patent infringement. Wargaming challenged the adequacy of both attempts, but ultimately agreed to waive service. GAT argued Wargaming should have been time barred from petitioning for IPR because of the attempts at service. The PTAB, allowing the IPR petition to proceed while it decided the issue, ultimately found the defects Wargaming objected to in both previous services meant they did not trigger § 315(b)’s time bar. The PTAB also however emphasized that it had “no authority to overlook defects in service” where “no district court ha[d] deemed service to have occurred”—which the district court had not considered due to the waiver of service.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit disagreed with the Board in part, finding that “[t]he Board cannot strictly rely on a district court’s determination of proper service because district courts rarely make such determinations.” However, the Federal Circuit found no error in the Board’s conclusion on the triggering of the time bar, in particular because GAT waived its arguments on whether the attempts at service or waiver of service triggered the time bar. The Court noted that “GAT’s opening brief devotes only one paragraph” to its argument regarding whether its service attempts were effective, and that it raised a second argument regarding Wargaming’s waiver of service triggering the time bar for the first time in oral argument. Given the “skeletal” and “shifting” nature of GAT’s arguments, the Court found those arguments were waived.
The Federal Circuit also affirmed the Board’s finding that the claims at issue were invalid as obvious over the prior art. Although the claims at issue were directed to an online video game controlled by a processor, a Dungeons & Dragons Handbook, combined with a reference that taught computer-implemented claim elements, properly invalidated the claims.
Copyright © 2019 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.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
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.