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

December 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a writ of mandamus that challenged the PTO Director’s reliance on “settled expectations” to discretionarily deny two inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In so doing, the court explained that, while it was not deciding whether the Director’s use of “settled expectations” was correct, the petitioner’s arguments about what factors the Director may consider when deciding whether to institute an IPR or post-grant review (PGR) are not generally reviewable and did not provide sufficient basis for mandamus review here.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 5, 2025

District courts are split on whether a complaint can provide the required knowledge for post-suit indirect and willful infringement in that same lawsuit. Chief Judge Connolly in the District of Delaware recently confirmed that, consistent with his prior opinions, the complaint cannot serve as the basis for knowledge for either a claim of post-suit indirect infringement or a demand for willfulness-based enhanced damages in that lawsuit.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held that a patentee acted as its own lexicographer to define a claim term even though it did not explicitly define the term. Rather, because the patentee consistently and clearly used two terms interchangeably to describe the same structural feature and did so in all of the embodiments in which the feature appeared, the patentee impliedly gave the term its own, unique definition.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 2, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held an asserted patent was not entitled to its priority date because the priority application lacked written description support for the asserted claims. In so doing, the court explained that broad disclosures that do not provide reasonably specific support for narrower claims do not meet the written description requirement. The court also considered whether the inventor’s testimony showed they possessed the full scope of the claimed genus at the priority date or whether it was more likely the inventors first became aware of the claimed embodiments from public disclosures of the accused product.

...

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.