Topic: Triggering event – amended complaint

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case IPR2014-00360, (June 27, 2014) (Paper 15)

Takeaway (1) (Informative): An amended complaint filed with the court’s leave is not deemed “served” for purposes of 35 USC § 315(b) at the time the motion to amend the complaint and proposed amended complaint were filed and served.

Takeaway  (2) (Informative): An amended complaint filed with the court’s leave is not deemed “served” for purposes of 35 USC § 315(b) until an amended complaint deemed to have been filed by the court is served, which cannot occur before the court grants the motion to amend the complaint.

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.