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
APJs Strictly Apply Joinder Rule in Post-Grant Review
| June 11, 2013
Last week in U.S. Bancorp v. Retirement Capital Access Management, CBM2013-00014, the petitioner asked the APJs to add two additional companies to the review as petitioners and real parties-in-interest. The two companies were defendants accused in a District Court action of infringing the patent under review, but they had not themselves requested post-grant review. The APJs denied the petitioner’s request for joinder.
The APJs began their analysis by citing the statutory basis for joinder:
If more than 1 petition . . . is properly filed against the same patent and the Director determines that more than 1 of these petitions warrants the institution of a . . . review . . . the Director may consolidate such reviews into a single . . . review.
35 U.S.C. § 325(c). They then cited the regulation implementing this statutory provision is, which likewise provides:
Joinder may be requested by a patent owner or petitioner. Any request for joinder must be filed, as a motion under § 4.22, no later than one month after the institution date of any . . . review for which joinder is requested.
37 C.F.R. § 42.222(b). Taking these provisions together, the APJs ruled that the two companies could not be joined to the review because they had not themselves filed a petition for review. The APJs explained that “the statute and corresponding regulation are directed to joining of proceedings not parties.” They added that there is “no provision in the statute or rules that authorizes joinder of parties to an already-filed petition without the filing of an additional petition.”
