Failing to Identify Parent Company as Real Party-In-Interest Proves Fatal to Petition for IPR

Sep 10, 2018

Reading Time : 1 min

Whether a non-party should be listed as an RPI is a fact-dependent inquiry. Factors that the Board consider include “whether a non-party exercises control over a petitioner’s participation in the proceeding and whether the non-party is directing the proceeding.” 

The Patent Owner presented undisputed evidence that Petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of XM Holdings, nine executive officers of XM Holdings are the same as those of Petitioner, XM Holdings’ SEC filings indicate that it was a defendant in legal proceedings that name only Petitioner (including patent infringement cases), and XM Holdings funded a settlement in certain class-action lawsuits filed against Petitioner.   

The Board relied on this evidence and concluded that XM Holdings was an RPI. Although Petitioner argued—and submitted a declaration from its General Counsel attesting—that XM Holdings has not and will not actually control this proceeding, the Board rejected the argument explaining that actual control is not the only measure in the RPI analysis. The Board explained that the RPI inquiry includes a determination of whether there is an opportunity to control, taking into account “whether the non-party is a clear beneficiary that has a preexisting, established relationship with the petitioner.” Based on the evidence, the Board determined that XM Holdings has this relationship with Petitioner and should have been identified as an RPI.   

In the alternative, Petitioner had requested authorization to amend its petition to name XM Holdings so as to keep its original filing date if the Board determined that XM Holdings was an RPI. The Board, however, denied the request.

Practice Tip: Careful consideration should be given to disclosure, as real parties-in-interest, of entities with an established relationship to IPR petitioners, including parent companies, especially when there is even the slightest indicia of involvement in the IPR proceeding or related litigation.

Sirius XM Radio, Inc. v. Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Forderung der angewandten Förschung e. V, IPR2018-00681 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2018).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice for failing to plausibly allege patent infringement. The court found that the allegations of direct infringement were insufficiently pled where the images of the accused product included in the complaint did not appear to show a particular necessary element of the claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The District of New Jersey recently denied the litigants’ request for a briefing schedule to resolve a dispute about a proposed discovery confidentiality order, and also denied extending the deadlines for the defendants’ invalidity and non-infringement contentions. At issue was the scope of the FDA and patent prosecution bars in the confidentiality order.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 27, 2026

The USPTO Director denied a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial of two inter partes review (IPR) petitions, citing the petitioner’s “well-settled expectation” that it would not be accused of infringing the two challenged patents. The Director’s conclusion was based on the petitioner’s decade-long business relationship with the original owner of the challenged patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

© 2026 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.