PTAB Denies Institution of Inter Partes Review as Untimely After Denying Motion for Joinder

Oct 1, 2014

Reading Time : 1 min

Microsoft filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,151,604 (IPR2013­00562) within one year of being served with the complaint in Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 2:12­cv­7360 (C.D. Cal.). The PTAB instituted review (Paper No. 15). Microsoft filed a second petition for inter partes review of the same patent (IPR2014­00574) nineteen months after service of the complaint. Normally, a petition filed more than one year after service of a complaint for patent infringement is barred by 35 U.S.C. § 315(b): “An inter partes review may

not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” But Microsoft included a motion to join the second petition with the first petition in an attempt to circumvent the one­year bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b): “The time limitation set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a request for joinder under subsection (c).”

Enfish opposed the motion for joinder, arguing that Microsoft cannot circumvent the one­year bar by joining the same party to its first petition. Instead, the joinder provision is “clearly directed towards the joining of additional (or different) parties, and not the joining of multiple proceedings involving the exact same parties.” And, to the extent the statute allows for joining the same party, the PTAB should use its discretion to deny Microsoft’s motion.

The PTAB did not address the question of whether the same party can avoid the one­year bar by joining itself to a petition filed within one year of service of a complaint for patent infringement. Instead, it exercised its discretion, finding that “Microsoft has not convinced us that joining this Petition with the previously instituted trials would ‘secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution’” as is required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). And, as a result, the PTAB found that the second petition was not timely filed.

Microsoft Corporation v. Enfish, LLC, PTAB Case No. IPR2014­00574.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 5, 2025

District courts are split on whether a complaint can provide the required knowledge for post-suit indirect and willful infringement in that same lawsuit. Chief Judge Connolly in the District of Delaware recently confirmed that, consistent with his prior opinions, the complaint cannot serve as the basis for knowledge for either a claim of post-suit indirect infringement or a demand for willfulness-based enhanced damages in that lawsuit.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held that a patentee acted as its own lexicographer to define a claim term even though it did not explicitly define the term. Rather, because the patentee consistently and clearly used two terms interchangeably to describe the same structural feature and did so in all of the embodiments in which the feature appeared, the patentee impliedly gave the term its own, unique definition.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 2, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held an asserted patent was not entitled to its priority date because the priority application lacked written description support for the asserted claims. In so doing, the court explained that broad disclosures that do not provide reasonably specific support for narrower claims do not meet the written description requirement. The court also considered whether the inventor’s testimony showed they possessed the full scope of the claimed genus at the priority date or whether it was more likely the inventors first became aware of the claimed embodiments from public disclosures of the accused product.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 1, 2025

In a Hatch-Waxman case, the District of Delaware denied a motion for summary judgment seeking to apply the ANDA filing date as the date of the hypothetical negotiation used to calculate reasonable royalty damages. Instead, the court determined that the appropriate date to use for the hypothetical negotiation is the launch date.

...

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.