Termination of IPR Proceeding on the Eve of Final Written Decision Dooms Joinder Attempt

May 17, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied institution and joinder of an inter partes review petition after determining that the petition was not only time-barred but that joinder was also foreclosed. In making its determination, the board found that the concurrent motion for joinder was not proper because the IPR proceeding sought to be joined had just been terminated due to settlement.

The challenged patent was directed to wireless communication using directed communication beams emanating from an antenna. Petitioner filed its petition for IPR more than two years after it had been served with a complaint alleging infringement of the challenged patent. Concurrently with its petition, petitioner filed a motion for joinder, seeking to be joined as a party with an earlier IPR in which claims of the same patent had been challenged.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), an IPR “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.” However, § 315(b) further provides that the time limitation does not apply when the petition is accompanied by a request for joinder. Here, petitioner filed its petition more than one year after it was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the challenged patent, and petitioner accompanied its IPR petition with a motion for joinder.

But the IPR proceeding to which petitioner sought to be joined had been terminated days before petitioner filed its petition. Although petitioner also sought leave to file a motion to reopen the earlier IPR, the board denied petitioner’s request. Because there was no IPR to join, the board denied the motion for joinder. Consequently, the provision in § 315(b) that would have permitted the time-barred petition was not applicable.

Practice Tip: If a petition is subject to the one-year time bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), a request for joinder can be a useful strategy to circumvent that bar. Under the board’s procedures, however, a motion for joinder should generally be filed within a month of institution. Here, petitioner failed to move for joinder within a month of institution or at any time during the pendency of the earlier IPR proceeding. Any delays in both filing a petition and in requesting joinder carry significant risk for a petitioner, including the possibility of being foreclosed from joining an earlier proceeding that has been terminated.

Ubiquiti Inc., v. XR Commc’ns, LLC, IPR2024-00148, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. May 6, 2024).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 20, 2026

The Federal Circuit recently addressed whether the PTO must conduct notice‑and‑comment rulemaking before issuing instructions that guide how the Board should exercise discretion at the institution stage of IPRs. The court held that no such rulemaking is required. Instructions to the Board regarding its use of the Director’s delegated discretionary authority not to institute review are merely general statements of policy exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking.  

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 18, 2026

The District Court for the District of Delaware recently invalidated claims directed to a panoramic objective lens for lack of enablement, holding the claims impermissibly recited a single element in means‑plus‑function form. Under § 112, ¶ 6, “[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function….” By its plain terms, the statute permits means‑plus‑function claiming only in the context of a “combination.” In other words, a claim may not consist solely of a single means‑plus‑function element. Claims drafted as a single means are invalid for lack of enablement as a matter of law.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 13, 2026

In an ANDA litigation, the District of Delaware recently denied the defendants’ motion to compel the production of correspondence between the plaintiffs’ testifying expert and a third-party analyst who had performed experiments and provided data used by the testifying expert. The court found that the scope of material sought by the motion was overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case.

...

Read More

© 2026 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.