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

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.