1. Insights
  2. Blogs
  3. IP Newsflash

Timing is Everything: Patent Trial and Appeal Board Clarifying When the One Year Clock For Requesting Inter Partes Review Begins to Run

Mar 24, 2015

Reading Time : 2 min

By: Rubén H. Muñoz

At issue was U.S. Patent No. 8,381,712 relating to a barbeque grill. On August 21, 2013, the patent owner, A&J sued Brinkmann for patent infringement of the 712 patent in the Southern District of Georgia. A&J sent Brinkmann a copy of the complaint and a request for waiver of service on October 7, 2013. Brinkmann executed the waiver of service on October 14, 2013, and A&J filed the executed waiver of service with the district court on October 21, 2013. Meanwhile, on the same day that A&J filed the district court complaint, it also filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission naming 21 respondents, including Brinkmann. A&J served its ITC complaint on Brinkmann on September 23, 2013. Thereafter, Brinkmann filed its petition for inter partes review of the 712 patent on October 13, 2014.

A&J alleged that Brinkmann did not have standing to request the inter partes review because its request was time barred. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), an inter partes review may not be instituted if it is filed more than one year after the petitioner “is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” A&J relied on the date it served the district court complaint on Brinkmann, October 7, 2013, to allege that Brinkmann’s inter partes review request of October 13, 2014 was more than a year after service of the district court complaint, and hence untimely. The board disagreed, resting its decision on Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(4). That rule states that “[w]hen the plaintiff files a waiver, proof of service is not required and these rules apply as if a summons and complaint had been served at the time of filing the waiver.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(4). Applying this rule, the board determined that the date on which A&J filed Brinkmann’s waiver of service with the district court, October 21, 2013, sets the clock for requesting inter partes review, and thus Brinkmann’s petition was timely.

A&J also argued that the date it served Brinkmann with the ITC complaint (September 23, 2013) should control whether Brinkmann’s petition was timely. The Board also rejected this argument, finding that the language “served with a complaint alleging patent infringement” in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) means “a complaint in a civil action for patent infringement, not in an arbitral or administrative proceeding.”

The Brinkmann Corp. v. A&J Manufacturing, LLC, IPR2015­00056, Paper No. 10 (PTAB Mar. 23, 2015).

Share This Insight

Categories

Patent Trial & Appeal BoardInter Partes Review
Subscribe to the IP Newsflash Blog Series >

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

July 22, 2026

The Court of Federal Claims recently denied the United States’ motion to dismiss a patent infringement suit related to production of a COVID-19 vaccine. The court held that it had jurisdiction because the plaintiff filed its claim there before it filed a parallel suit in a district court and because it adequately pleaded the government’s involvement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 13, 2026

In a precedential and sua sponte Director Review decision, USPTO Director Squires recently vacated three related institution decisions nearly six months after institution where a district court later found the challenged claims invalid. Because the fourteen-day deadline to request Director Review of the institution decisions had passed, the Director used this opportunity to formally extend the deadline in two ways. First, he extended the fourteen-day deadline under 37 C.F.R. § 42.75(c)(1) to thirty days, which “puts requests for Director Review of decisions to institute trial on equal footing to requests for Director Review of final decisions or decisions not to institute trial.” Second, he outlined certain “exceptional circumstances” that warrant a further extension of the deadline to account for changes in the case that “surface after the deadline.” In the case at hand, the Director found the district court’s invalidity finding to be such an “exceptional circumstance” and ultimately initiated review and vacated the institution decisions on that basis.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 5, 2026

The Supreme Court unanimously held that for a complaint of induced infringement, a patent owner must allege that the accused infringer took affirmative, not passive, steps to encourage direct infringement. Thus, where a generic drug has a skinny label, to induce infringement of the carved-out patented use of the drug, the generic company must have taken steps that were designed to cause others to perform the patented use, not just steps that could cause such conduct.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 07, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois granted a summary judgment motion of no invalidity based on indefiniteness because the qualitative terms like “sufficiently slow” and “desired period of time” were definite when viewed in light of the surrounding claim language and specification.

...

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.