Service of Complaint Without Exhibits Does Not Trigger the One-Year Time Bar to File IPR

October 9, 2023

Reading Time : 3 min

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that service of a bare complaint without exhibits did not trigger the one-year time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), which requires the filing of a petition for inter partes review within one year after being served with a district court complaint alleging patent infringement. Although the petitioner’s request for an inter partes review was more than one year after the date of service, the Board found it was not untimely.

Plotagraph Inc. (“Plotagraph”) is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 10,346,017. Plotagraph, along with the inventors of the ’017 patent, sued Lightricks Ltd. (“Lightricks”) for infringement of, among others, the ’017 patent. They served Lightricks with the complaint at Lightricks’s various Israeli offices on December 23, 2021, and January 4, 2022. On January 17, 2023—one year and 13 days after the latest service—Lightricks filed a petition for inter partes review of claims 1‒18 of the ’017 patent.

Plotagraph contends that the petition is untimely under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), which states that “[a]n 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 . . . is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” Plotagraph asserts that since Lightricks filed its petition more than one year after it was served with the complaint, regardless of which date of service is used, the petition is time barred. Lightricks responds that because Plotagraph’s service attempts provided a copy of only the complaint but not the exhibits, it failed to comply with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and therefore the defective service did not trigger the time bar under Section 315(b). Lightricks instead contends that the service date should be January 21, 2022, which is when Lightricks filed a waiver of service with the district court and is the date that the parties relied on for scheduling of future proceedings.

The Board agreed with Lightricks and held that defective service of a district court complaint does not trigger the time bar under Section 315(b). It cited Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that “an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading for all purposes.” The Board was unpersuaded by Plotagraph’s argument that the prior service attempts had provided Lightricks notice of the lawsuit and that those attempts were sufficient to trigger the time bar under Section 315(b).

The Board distinguished its decision from an earlier precedential decision, GoPro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc., IPR2018-01754, Paper 38 (PTAB Aug. 23, 2019). The Board explained that in GoPro, the pleading was deficient because a party lacked standing and it held that the pleading was nevertheless sufficient to trigger the time bar under Section 315(b). According to the Board, GoPro differs from the facts here, where service was undisputedly deficient.

Practice Tip: Since defective service does not trigger the time bar under Section 315(b), it is critical for patent owners to ensure that service is proper, including by appending all necessary exhibits. This prevents would-be petitioners from having additional time to file their petition. If service is deficient, patent owners should remedy that error as quickly as possible, or be aware that the one-year clock under Section 315(b) may start later, such as the date when a defendant waives service of process. Petitioners should keep in mind that although pleading deficiencies may trigger the time bar, service deficiencies do not. Even where service is deficient, it is advisable to file the petition before the one-year anniversary of the earliest service, but if that is not possible, petitioners should file their petition for inter partes review no later than one year after the earliest proper service of process or waiver of service of process, whichever is earlier.

Lightricks, Ltd. v. Plotagraph, Inc. et al., IPR2023-00153, Paper 9 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2023).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

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.