Shared Counsel and Existence of Joint Defense Agreement Insufficient to Establish Real Party-In-Interest Status

December 2, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejected a patent owner’s assertion that petitioner should have named a third party, which was a defendant in a related district court patent infringement litigation and a party to a joint defense agreement (JDA) with petitioner, as a real party-in-interest (RPI). Had the board ruled otherwise and found the third party to be an RPI, the petition would have been time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).

Patent owner argued that the third party was an RPI because petitioner and the third party were pursuing a unified invalidity defense strategy, as evidenced by the JDA in their related patent infringement litigations and the submission of identical invalidity contentions that overlap with the unpatentability grounds in the petition. And because petitioner and the third-party shared counsel—specifically, the lead counsel for the IPR petition—patent owner argued that the overlapping representation made the third party an RPI to this IPR. In response, petitioner submitted declaration testimony from its lead IPR counsel, who testified that her involvement in the third party’s district court litigation was limited to arguing a motion based on 35 U.S.C. § 101. She also declared that neither she nor any other counsel for petitioner had represented the third party on any other issue, nor did they advise the third party regarding what to include in its preliminary invalidity contentions.

In its analysis, the board noted that the sharing of counsel in district court by a non-party to an IPR accused of infringing the same patent as the petitioner is common and not by itself sufficient to make that non-party an RPI. Instead, the RPI determination requires a flexible approach that accounts for equitable and practical considerations, particularly whether the non-party is a clear beneficiary of the proceedings and has a preexisting, established relationships with the petitioner. Further, the board observed that the mere existence of a JDA does not demonstrate a preexisting, established relationship. Thus, the board rejected patent owner’s assertion that the petition should have identified the third party as an RPI.

Practice Tip:

The existence of a JDA between petitioner and a defendant in related patent litigations and the de minimis involvement of petitioner’s IPR counsel in the other defendant’s district court case are insufficient on their own to establish RPI status. Without evidence of more substantial overlapping engagement by counsel or evidence showing collaboration between the parties as it relates to the IPR, the board is unlikely to find that a defendant in a related patent litigation is an RPI.

Box, Inc. v. Topia Tech., Inc., IPR2023-00427, Paper 64 (P.T.A.B. August 1, 2024)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

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

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

© 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.