Experience
RPX Corp.
VirnetX Inc.
Several patents owned by Finnegan client VirnetX were challenged through seven inter partes review (IPR) petitions filed by RPX. The facts suggested that RPX had been acting on behalf of another, unnamed time-barred entity. In the window between the filing of the petitions and the due date for its preliminary responses, VirnetX sought discovery on the relationship between RPX and the other entity. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) authorized VirnetX to file a motion for additional discovery and granted the motion—one of the few instances where the PTAB authorized, let alone granted, a motion for additional discovery. Leveraging the discovery in its preliminary responses, VirnetX secured non-institution decisions from the Board, which found that the petitioner was acting as proxy for the time-barred entity—the true real party-in-interest.
RPX Corp. v. VirnetX Inc., IPR2014-00171, -00172, -00173, -00174, -00175, -00176, -00177, PTAB, Judges Easthom, Siu, Tierney
Microsoft Corp. v. VirnetX Inc.
VirnetX Inc.
Joinder and IPR institution denied based on time bar
VirnetX Inc.
Microsoft Corporation v. VirnetX, Inc.
VirnetX, Inc.
RPX Corporation; Michael Farmwald v. ParkerVision, Inc.
ParkerVision, Inc.
OpenTV, Inc.
New Bay Capital, LLC v. VirnetX, Inc.
VirnetX, Inc.
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.