Defendants Ordered to Coordinate Pretrial Litigation in MDL Are Not Necessarily 'Significantly Related' to Support Discretionary Denial of IPR

April 25, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

The Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office vacated and remanded a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board discretionarily denying institution of an inter partes review petition. The Director concluded that court-ordered coordination between the current petitioner and the petitioner of a previous IPR—each sued by patent owner in different district courts over different accused products—did not establish a significant relationship between the parties as contemplated in the analysis for discretionary denial of institution set forth in General Plastics.

Petitioner filed an IPR challenging two claims of a patent that had already been challenged by other petitioners in two previous IPR petitions. The board had denied institution of the first of those petitions, but instituted IPR on the second. Based on those previous petitions, patent owner argued that the board should exercise its discretion to deny institution of the current IPR. The board agreed, finding that a significant relationship existed between the petitioner here and the petitioner of the previously instituted IPR. The board noted that although the two petitioners were not co-defendants in the same district court litigation in which the challenged patent was asserted, the petitioners’ joint filing of claim construction and invalidity contentions in district court suggested a significant relationship between them. The board then found that petitioner’s knowledge of the prior art in the later petition, time elapsed between petitions, and petitioner’s explanation for the elapsed time also weighed in favor of discretionary denial. 

In a request for Director review, petitioner argued that the board’s denial of institution represented an abuse of discretion. The Director granted petitioner’s request for review and agreed that the current petitioner did not have a significant relationship with the petitioner of the previously instituted IPR. First, the two petitioners had different allegedly infringing products, and there was no evidence that the petitioners had any agreement on the implementation of the relevant technology in their respective products. Indeed, the petitioners were direct competitors. Second, the petitioners were defendants in different districts and were merely ordered by the district court, over their objections, to coordinate pretrial filings in a multidistrict litigation. Lastly, although the board did not base its decision on the first-filed IPR petition, which was not instituted, any relationship between that petitioner and the current petitioner would be even more tenuous and therefore would not support discretionary denial. The Director remanded to the board to render an institution decision that considered the merits of the petition.

Practice Tip: The PTAB may discretionarily deny an IPR petition if the petitioner is either the same as, or found to have a significant relationship with, the petitioner of a previously filed IPR challenging the same claims. Two defendants involved in multi-district litigation might not have a significant relationship if they sell different accused products and are merely engaged in court-ordered pretrial coordination. Nonetheless, to minimize risk of discretionary denial, a petitioner involved in multi-district litigation should avoid coordinating, or appearing to coordinate, its IPR with that of an earlier petitioner.

Ford Motor Co. v. Neo Wireless LLC, IPR2023-00763, Paper 28 (P.T.A.B. Mar 22, 2024).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.