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

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.