Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
Federal Circuit: The PTAB Determination of the Timeliness of an IPR Petition Is Part of the Initial Decision to Institute an IPR, and Is Not Reviewable on Appeal
On Sept. 30, 2015, a Federal Circuit panel of Chief Judge Prost, Judge Lourie, and Judge Linn issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Judge Linn, in Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2014-1767, -1788. The panel held that it could not consider Achates' appeal either on the timeliness of Apple's inter partes review (IPR) petition or on its merits, and dismissed the appeals.
Achates first asserted its patent in district court against QuickOffice, Inc. One year after, Achates joined Apple to the suit. Apple then filed for IPR of Achates' patents. In response to Apple's petitions, Achates argued before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that Apple's IPR was time-barred under 35 U.S.C. '315(b): “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, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent. The time limitation set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a request for joinder.” Slip op. at 4 (citing 35 U.S.C. '315(b)). The PTAB determined that “none of the codefendants were real parties in interest or privies of Apple,” instituted the IPR proceedings, and invalidated all claims. Id. at 4-5. Achates appealed the PTAB's ruling on the applicability of the '315(b) time bar and its denial of Achates' motion for discovery to show the relevance of the '315(b) time bar through Apple's relationship with codefendants in the case.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?