Timeliness of IPR petition under §315(b) is an issue of whether to initiate the proceeding, and Board’s determination is nonappealable under §314(d), and the court cannot review it.
| October 21, 2015
Achates Reference v. Apple Inc.,
September 30, 2015
CAFC Panel and Opinion Author: PROST, LOURIE and LINN (Author)
Summary
The patentee, Achates sued QuickOffice and others for patent infringement. One year later, Achates joined Apple as a codefendant. Several months later, Apple filed petitions for IPR in USPTO against each of the patents. Achates argued that Apple had a relationship with QuickOffice based on their blank indemnification agreement and that such relationship caused Apple’s petitions for IPR to be time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). CAFC held that timeliness of the petition for IPR under §315(b) is an issue of whether to initiate the proceeding, and Board’s determination is nonappealable under §314(d), and the court cannot review it.
特許権者のAchates社は、QuickOffice社らに訴状を送達してから1年後にApple社を原告として追加した。数ヵ月後Apple社は米国特許庁に当事者系レビューの請求を提出した。Achates社は、Apple社は最初の被告QuickOfficeから賠償保証を受ける契約をしているので、QuickOfficeの関係者であり、当事者系レビューの請求は米国特許法315条(b)に規定する期限を徒過していると主張した。CAFCは、当事者系レビューの請求が、期限内に提出されたかどうかは、当事者系レビューを開始するかどうかに関する問題であり、審判部の決定は、314条(d)の規定により、裁判所が見直すことはできないと判示した。
Tags: 35 U.S.C. §314(d) > 35 U.S.C. §315(b) > appeal of decision whether to institute IPR > IPR
A guide for the international patent attorney: how to read the recent CAFC en banc decision on laches–a viable defense against patent infringement, for the time being
| October 19, 2015
SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Products, LLC
September 18, 2015
Introductory note from the author of this review: When I read this decision, it struck me that the legal analysis is based on concepts and distinctions which may not be clearly appreciated by someone not familiar with the “common law” tradition, the co-existence of remedies “at law” and remedies in “equity”, and the underlying principle of “separation of powers” in the federal government in the U.S. This en banc decision is very important, so there have been already numerous reports on the decision. I hope to contribute, in the form of the interspersed “notes” below, background information which may shed more light on the decision for our international colleagues. Le-Nhung McLeland
En banc decision: Opinion for court by Prost, joined by Newman, Lourie, Dyk, O’Malley, and Reyna. Opinion concurring-in-part, dissenting-in-part by Hughes, joined by Moore, Wallach, Taranto, and Chen. Judge Stoll did not participate in decision.
Note: Twenty three “amicus curiae” briefs were received in this case, which is a measure of its importance. The briefs were submitted on behalf of patent professional associations, as well as a broad range of corporations including Hewlett-Packard, Intel Corporation, Xerox Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, AT&T Mobility II LLC, T-Mobile USA, Roche Molecular Systems, Harley-Davidson Motor Company, and Rockwell Automation, Inc. The en banc majority refers to some of these briefs, in the body of the opinion or in footnotes.
