Filewrapper®

PTAB's Interpretation of 35 USC 315(b) Continues to Stand: Dismissal Without Prejudice Effectively Nullifies the One Year Bar to Bring an IPR

March 30, 2016
Post by Jonathan L. Kennedy

The USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board's holding that the voluntary dismissal of a lawsuit, without prejudice, effectively nullifies the service of the complaint for purposes of triggering the one year bar in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) to petition for the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) stands in Shaw Indus. Grp. v. Automated Creel Sys. after the Federal Circuit maintains that it does not have jurisdiction to review the PTAB's decision to institute an IPR.

Automated Creel sued Shaw Industries in February 2012 for patent infringement and subsequently dismissed the suit voluntarily without prejudice. Within one year of service of the complaint Shaw Industries filed a petition of an IPR seeking invalidation of all claims in the patent. The PTAB instituted an IPR one all of the claims except claim 4. Shaw then filed another petition for an IPR directed at claim 4. This petition was filed later than one year after service of the complaint in the now-dismissed patent infringement lawsuit. The PTAB decided to institute the IPR on claim 4.

Both IPRs proceeded separately. Ultimately, the PTAB consolidated them and issued one final written decision invalidating a number of the claims including claim 4. Automated Creel appealed the PTAB's interpretation of § 315(b) that resulted in the decision to institute the IPR invalidating claim 4. Specifically, Automated Creel argued that the IPR should have been barred by § 315(b) as it was brought later than one year after service of the complaint. § 315(b) states, "An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner . . . is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent."

The PTAB had justified instituting the IPR on claim 4 stating, "consistently [we] ha[ve] interpreted the effect of dismissals without prejudice as leaving the parties as though the action had never been brought." Thus, the PTAB concluded that the voluntary dismissal without prejudice "nullifie[d] the effect of the service of the complaint." The Federal Circuit reiterated that it "lack[s] jurisdiction to review this aspect of the Board's decision." Thus, the PTAB's interpretation stands for the time being. The Federal Circuit did note that this issue may be affecting by the second question before the Supreme Court inCuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee. The second question before the Supreme Court is "Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that, even if the Board exceeds its statutory authority in instituting an IPR proceeding, the Board's decision whether to institute an IPR proceeding is judicially unreviewable."

The Federal Circuit's opinion is available here.


Post Categories

Comments (0)
Post a Comment



Captcha Image
Return to the Filewrapper Blog

Search Posts

Purpose

The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

Disclaimer

McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.

Connect with MVS

Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

  I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.