Search

Favorite Blogs

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。

CAFC Alert

Lessons on Claim & Specification Drafting, Litigation Strategies and more

Search

Favorite Blogs

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.

Subscribe | 登録

Archives

Tags

英語から日本語