PTAB: Reexamination Does Not Reset the One-Year Deadline For Filing a Petition for Inter Partes Review

Jun 5, 2019

Reading Time : 2 min

On October 2, 2014, Patent Owner filed a lawsuit in district court accusing Petitioner of infringing several claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,039,033 (the “’033 Patent”). In response, Petitioner filed an IPR (the “original IPR”) challenging the validity of the claims that Patent Owner had asserted against it in district court. The Board instituted the original IPR and ultimately held that all of the challenged claims were unpatentable. The Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s determination and thereafter the Board issued a certification cancelling all claims of the ’033 Patent challenged in the original IPR. Notably, while the Federal Circuit appeal was pending, Patent Owner sought ex parte reexamination of the ’033 Patent. The Patent Office granted the reexamination request and issued a reexamination certificate adding 68 new claims to the ’033 Patent. On November 18, 2018, within one year of the reexamination certificate being granted, Petitioner filed six IPRs (the “present IPRs”) challenging the validity of the new claims that were added to the ’033 Patent during reexamination.

The Board, however, declined institution of these IPRs because it found they were filed more than one year after the Petitioner was served with the district court complaint on October 2, 2014. These petitions were, therefore, time-barred under § 315(b). In reaching its decision, the Board rejected Petitioner’s argument that § 315(b)’s one-year time bar did not apply because Patent Owner’s ex parte reexamination certificate adding new claims created a new, materially different patent. The Board found that the Federal Circuit in Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio Inc. considered and rejected Petitioner’s argument, explaining that “reexamination does not result in the issuance of a new patent for purposes of § 315(b), regardless of claim scope.” Interestingly, the Board acknowledged that while its decision potentially forecloses the use of IPR for challenging reexamined claims, “Congress could have included in . . . [§] 315(b) language regarding the effect of reexamination on the deadline to file an IPR[,]” but chose not to do so.

The Board also denied Petitioner’s attempt to circumvent the § 315(b) time bar by joining the present IPRs to the original IPR. The Board first noted that the present IPRs were filed more than 34 months after the original IPR was instituted. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion requesting joinder was filed several years after the one-month (post-institution) deadline set by the joinder rule and was therefore untimely. The Board further noted that even if the rules provide for joinder within one month of the issuance of a reexamination certificate, which they do not expressly do, Petitioner’s request was still several months late. Notwithstanding the joinder deadline, the Board also found that the original IPR was no longer pending before the Board and, therefore, it “cannot serve as a base proceeding to which [the present IPRs] may be joined.” Thus, the Board held that joinder was inappropriate for the independent reason that there was nothing for the present IPRs to join.

Practice Tip: Based on the Board’s current practice, a patent owner whose claims are found to be unpatentable in an IPR proceeding should consider—during the pendency of the proceeding, including an appeal of the Board’s determination—whether it could get new claims through ex parte reexamination. Any new claims that issue through reexamination may be immune from an IPR if the patent owner previously asserted the patent against the petitioner. Such consideration should also take into account any potential ramifications of intervening rights.

Apple Inc., v. IXI IP, LLC, IPR2019-00124, -00125, -00139, -00140, -00141, -00181 (PTAB June 3, 2019) (Tierney)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

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.