LG Electronics, Inc. v. Mondis Tech, Ltd., Case IPR2015-00937 (Sept. 17, 2015) (Paper 8)

Takeaway: A “hybrid” dismissal of a claim of infringement of a patent (dismissal with prejudice for some aspects and without prejudice for other aspects) does not reset the clock for the § 315(b) one-year time bar

Click Here For Copy of Decision

Takeaway:

A “hybrid” dismissal of a claim of infringement of a patent (dismissal with prejudice for some aspects and without prejudice for other aspects) does not reset the clock for the § 315(b) one-year time bar Continue reading “LG Electronics, Inc. v. Mondis Tech, Ltd., Case IPR2015-00937 (Sept. 17, 2015) (Paper 8)”

TRW Automotive US LLC v. Magna Electronics, Inc., Case No. IPR2014-00293 (June 27, 2014) (Paper 18)

Takeaway(1): For patents added to a pending patent litigation through a motion to amend the complaint, the clock for the 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) one-year time bar starts when the motion is granted (not when the motion is first served).

Takeaway (2): A Patent Owner challenging a petition for failing to identify all real-parties-in-interest must provide a factual basis to support its allegation.

Click Here For Copy of Decision

Takeaway (1):

For patents added to a pending patent litigation through a motion to amend the complaint, the clock for the 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) one-year time bar starts when the motion is granted (not when the motion is first served).

Takeaway (2):

A Patent Owner challenging a petition for failing to identify all real-parties-in-interest must provide a factual basis to support its allegation. Continue reading “TRW Automotive US LLC v. Magna Electronics, Inc., Case No. IPR2014-00293 (June 27, 2014) (Paper 18)”

Oracle Corp. et al. v. Click-to-Call Technologies LP, Case IPR2013-00312 (October 30, 2013) (Paper 26) (Precedential only as to Section III.A)

Takeaway: Voluntary dismissal of a claim of infringement of a patent resets the clock for the § 315(b) one-year time bar. In other words, § 315(b) does not bar a petitioner from filing an IPR petition more than one year after having been served with a complaint alleging infringement of the challenged patent if the complaint was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).

Click Here For Copy of Decision

Takeaway:

Voluntary dismissal of a claim of infringement of a patent resets the clock for the § 315(b) one-year time bar. In other words, § 315(b) does not bar a petitioner from filing an IPR petition more than one year after having been served with a complaint alleging infringement of the challenged patent if the complaint was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). Continue reading “Oracle Corp. et al. v. Click-to-Call Technologies LP, Case IPR2013-00312 (October 30, 2013) (Paper 26) (Precedential only as to Section III.A)”

Motorola Mobility LLC v. Patent of Michael Arnouse, Case IPR2013-00010 (October 15, 2012) (Paper 20)

Takeaway: The one year time period for filing an inter partes review does not begin running until the accused infringer is served with a copy of the complaint and a summons under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Click Here For Copy of Decision

Takeaway:

The one year time period for filing an inter partes review does not begin running until the accused infringer is served with a copy of the complaint and a summons under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Continue reading “Motorola Mobility LLC v. Patent of Michael Arnouse, Case IPR2013-00010 (October 15, 2012) (Paper 20)”