Blurring the Lines: Omitting a Related Corporate Entity Could Lead to Loss of Petition Filing Date Where Corporate Lines Are Unclear

Authored by Michelle Carniaux and Michael E. Sander

Failing to identify all real parties of interest in a petition can have disastrous consequences for an IPR petitioner. Just days after we discussed a case where the Board found that a petitioner identified, in substance, all real parties in interest despite omitting an entity who should have been identified, it appears that the petitioner in another, separate proceeding had a less fortunate fate.

Click here to continue reading…

Amendment Hurdles: Clearing Hurdles for Substitute Independent Claim Does Not Necessarily Lead to Clearing Hurdles for Substitute Dependent Claim

Authored by Michelle Carniaux, Michael E. Sander, and Eric Paul Greenwald

In an earlier post, we discussed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“the Board”) Idle Free decision, which explained the high hurdle for a successful patentability argument in a Motion to Amend Claims. See IPR2012-00027, No. 26, Order (P.T.A.B. June 11, 2013).

Click here to continue reading…

UPDATE: Igniting the After Burners: Iron Dome Files Motion for Attorneys Fees

Authored by Michelle Carniaux and Michael E. Sander

We previously blogged about Iron Dome, a company which allegedly demands transferable patent licenses from patent assertion entities (“PAEs”) in exchange for forgoing their right to file an inter partes review petition. As discussed, one of the PAEs subject to this strategy, Chinook Licensing DE LLC, was not too happy, and sued Iron Dome on a variety of claims, including tortious interference with business relations, violations of the RICO Act, mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy.

Click here to continue reading...