Petitioner Not Allowed To Use Joinder To Add New Issues To Instituted Inter Partes Review

Oct 2, 2014

Reading Time : 1 min

In two separate decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the board) denied Target’s motion for joinder by a 3­2 vote and, denied institution of the inter partes review as being time­barred.

Joinder

Target previously had petitioned for inter partes review of the ‘563 patent. Target later filed another petition for the same patent and simultaneously moved to join the new proceeding with the already instituted IPR.

The board began by reviewing the joinder statute, which allows any person who properly files a petition to join an inter partes review, subject to the director’s discretion. The board interpreted the statute narrowly, finding that it only allows the joining of a person and not new issues in another petition. Because Target already was a party to the IPR proceeding, it could not be joined to that proceeding.

The dissent argued that the majority’s interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) was nonsensical since the statute also require the joining party to file its own petition. The dissent also relied on the board’s prior rulings that consistently have allowed joinder of additional grounds by the same party. After presenting its own statutory construction analysis, the dissent determined that joinder of additional grounds by the same party is permissible.

Timeliness

The patent owner had served its patent infringement lawsuit on Target on October 4, 2012. Target filed the subject petition on March 14, 2014, more than one year after the Complaint. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), the one year time bar does not apply to a person’s request to “join as a party to [a previously instituted] inter partes review.” Although Target moved for joinder, the board found that while the time bar does not apply to the party, it does apply to the petition. The dissent disagreed with the majority’s reading of the statute, believing that if joinder appropriate, the time bar would not apply.

Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp., IPR2014­00508, Paper No. 18 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2014); Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp., IPR2014­00508, Paper No. 20 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2014).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 18, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a $20 million jury verdict in favor of a patentee and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the patentee did not own the asserted patents at the time it filed suit and therefore lacked standing.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 17, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding claims that had been subject to an ex parte reexamination unpatentable. As a threshold issue, the court held that IPR estoppel under 35 USC § 315(e)(1) does not apply to ongoing ex parte reexaminations. Accordingly, the Patent Office did not err in continuing the reexamination after issuing final written decisions in co-pending IPRs.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 15, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s demand for enhanced damages based on willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, explaining that neither a demand for damages under § 284 nor an accusation of willful infringement amount to a claim for relief that can be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a writ of mandamus that challenged the PTO Director’s reliance on “settled expectations” to discretionarily deny two inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In so doing, the court explained that, while it was not deciding whether the Director’s use of “settled expectations” was correct, the petitioner’s arguments about what factors the Director may consider when deciding whether to institute an IPR or post-grant review (PGR) are not generally reviewable and did not provide sufficient basis for mandamus review here.

...

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.