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

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

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.