Featured Posts
- Facebook Loses Reexaminations of Pragmatus’ Patents
- How is Reexamination Treating Round Rock Research?
- Reexamination has not Saved Apple against MobileMedia Patents, So Far
- What is an “Involved Application” in IPR Practice?
- Apple Victorious over Affinity Labs of Texas’ Portable Audio Player Patent
- Think IP Strategy Offers 2011 News Almanac
- An Update on Oracle’s Infringement Case against Google
- PTO Requests Public Comment on Proposed Rules for AIA Post-Issuance Proceedings
- Microsoft-i4i, Oracle-Google & VirnetX-Apple-Cisco Updates
- Oracle Patent to Emerge from Reexamination
- VirnetX again Sues for Infringement, and again Faces Reexaminations
- How Strong are Google’s Requests for Reexamination of the Lodsys Patents?
- PTO Board Sides with NVIDIA on Two Rambus “Barth I” Patents
- Oracle ‘520 Moves toward Confirmation in Reexamination
- Google Gets Mixed Result against Oracle’s Seventh Patent
- Did Google Request Reexamination of Lodsys Patents?
- Two Updates
- Oracle v. Google Android® Update
- Rambus Wins Limited Exclusion Order at ITC against NVIDIA, despite Pending Reexaminations
- 最初が肝心：不備のない再審査請求書を作成するために
- That’s My Patent You’re Reexamining…
- “Why Wait for Oppositions?” by Scott Daniels, 47 IDEA 343 (Law Review of Franklin Pierce Law School)
- The Basics
Noteworthy Links
- "The Interplay between Reexaminations, Preliminary Injunctions and Stays of Litigation" - by Dennis Crouch at PATENTLYO.COM
Favorite Patent Blogs
- All Things Pros
- CAFC Alert
- FDA Law Blog
- IPWatchdog
- Patent Docs
- Patently-O
- PLI Patent Law Practice Center
- Think IP Strategy
- US Patent Post-Grant Opposition
Recent Requests
PTO Statistics
Investors in a Separate Corporation that Files an IPR Petition Are Not Real Parties in Interest
| April 2, 2014
Clouding IP is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 6,738,799 (the ‘799 patent). The ‘799 patent is related to a method of file synchronization using a signature list. Clouding asserted the ‘799 patent in a host of lawsuits, including one against Google. More than one year after the Google case was filed, Unified Patents filed a petition to institute Inter Partes Review (IPR) of certain claims of the ‘799 patent.
Clouding submitted a Patent Owner Preliminary Response, arguing that the IPR should not be instituted because Google, not Unified Patents, was the “real party in interest” under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). Since Clouding sued Google more than one year before the Petition was filed, Clouding argued that the Petition was barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
In support of its argument, Clouding pointed to a Bloomberg online article identifying Google as a founding member of Unified Patents. Clouding also pointed to another article claiming that Unified Patents “counters the risk and cost of patent troll litigation by protecting strategic technologies.” Relying on this evidence, Clouding asked the Board to conclude that the real party in interest was Google, not Unified Patents.
The Board looked to the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide to determine how to identify the real party in interest. The Guide states: “Whether a party who is not a named participant in a given proceeding nonetheless constitutes a ‘real party-in-interest’ or ‘privy’ to that proceeding is a highly fact-dependent question.” In concluding that the petition was not barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), the Board held that Clouding’s evidence was insufficient. In so doing, the Board suggested that the necessary evidence must more concretely demonstrate control of the IPR, as well as direct funding of the IPR. Here, Clouding demonstrated neither.
It remains to be seen whether in the underlying case, Clouding will seek discovery from Google relating to Google’s relationship with Unified Patents, and more particularly, to the IPR at issue. Thus, while the issue may not be closed, round one certainly went to Unified Patents.
