Delay in Correcting Disclosure of Real Parties-in-Interest not Procedurally Fatal to IPR Petition

July 25, 2024

Reading Time : 3 min

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted an inter partes review over patent owner’s objections that the petition did not timely identify all real parties-in-interest (RPI) and was filed by a phantom legal entity after petitioner had undergone a corporate reorganization. The PTAB accepted petitioner’s updated mandatory notices that identified the correct RPI, revised the caption, and instituted the IPR proceeding.

On April 19, 2023, petitioner converted from a California corporation to a Delaware limited liability company. The California corporation had been served with an amended complaint on October 24, 2022, and the IPR petition was filed in the name of the California corporation on October 24, 2023. The petition identified the California corporation as the only RPI. On February 7, 2024, through a merger, petitioner became a subsidiary of a parent company. Petitioner filed updated mandatory notices on March 11, 2024, disclosing the changes to its corporate structure and identifying the Delaware limited liability company and the parent company as RPIs. Patent owner argued that the PTAB should not consider the petition because any new or updated petition filed at the time of the updated mandatory notices in the Delaware corporation’s name would have been time-barred and because, at the time the petition was filed, the original petitioner no longer existed as a legal entity. 

To decide whether to accept petitioner’s updated mandatory notices, the board considered whether there had been (1) attempts to circumvent the 35 U.S.C. § 315 bar or estoppel, (2) bad faith, (3) prejudice to patent owner, or (4) gamesmanship. First, the board determined that a petition modified by updated mandatory notices is not time-barred unless any of the new RPIs would have been time-barred at the time the petition was originally filed. Here, there was no allegation that such was the case. Second, patent owner argued that the six-month delay in petitioner filing updated mandatory notices showed bad faith and lack of diligence. The board agreed with petitioner that the delay was merely an error that did not evidence bad faith. Third, patent owner argued that the updated mandatory notices prejudiced patent owner by potentially delaying related district court litigation and causing it to incur additional legal fees to address this issue. The board stated that it did not have sufficient evidence that petitioner’s updated mandatory notices would delay district court proceedings and did not believe that the cost of litigating a good faith dispute sufficiently prejudiced patent owner to warrant denying the petition. Finally, patent owner argued that petitioner was engaged in gamesmanship to hide the existence of other RPIs that might trigger the time bar. The PTAB rejected this argument because there was insufficient evidence that there were any such other RPIs and thus insufficient evidence of any gamesmanship. 

The board then turned to patent owner’s argument that the petition should not be considered because it was filed by the California corporation—a nonexistent legal entity at the time the petition was filed. Patent owner argued that 35 U.S.C. § 311(a), authorizing a person who is not the owner of a patent to petition for IPR, was a jurisdictional statute, and that the board had no jurisdiction over an IPR petition filed by the nonexistent California corporation. The board disagreed, finding no evidence that Congress had intended for § 311(a) to set forth a jurisdictional, rather than merely procedural, requirement. The PTAB concluded that, where there is no allegation that the petitioner is the patent owner, there is insufficient evidence of bad faith, and the California corporation continued to exist as a Delaware corporation, naming the incorrect petitioner was akin to omitting an RPI. As such, the board determined that, the same analysis that applied under § 312(a)(2) applied here, and similarly rejected patent owner’s argument under § 311(a).    

Accordingly, the PTAB accepted petitioner’s updated mandatory notices and instituted the petition on the merits. The board also modified the caption to reflect the Delaware LLC as petitioner.

Practice Tip: When a petitioner’s mandatory notices must be updated, both parties should be careful to analyze whether any previously unnamed parties would affect the analysis under the statutory bar or estoppel provisions. If not, and if there was no bad faith and minimal prejudice to the patent owner, the board is unlikely to deny the petition solely because of petitioner’s failure to name the correct parties.

LifeCore Fitness, LLC v. Woodway USA, Inc., IPR2024-00083, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. May 17, 2024)

 

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

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.