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

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.