Knobbe/Martens: Intellectual Property Law

One-Year Clock for Filing IPR Petition Applies to Litigants and Parties That Become Privies of the Litigant Prior to Institution

By Clayton R. Henson and Mark Kachner June 14, 2019

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC v. SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS

Before Prost, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: An IPR is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) if, at the time of institution, the petitioner is in privity with a party who was served with a complaint for patent infringement over a year before the petition was filed.

In 2009, Power Integrations sued Fairchild for patent infringement.  After expiration of Fairchild’s one-year IPR window under § 315(b), Semiconductor Components—who was not a party to the litigation—petitioned for IPR.  At the time Semiconductor Components petitioned, they had entered into a merger agreement with Fairchild.  The merger closed after the IPR petition was filed, but before the PTAB issued its institution decision.  In instituting the IPR, the PTAB focused its § 315(b) analysis on when the petition was filed, and asked whether Semiconductor Components and Fairchild were in privity on that date.  Because the merger had not closed at the time of filing, the PTAB determined that the petition was not time-barred.

The Federal Circuit reversed.  Section 315(b) states that 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.”  The Federal Circuit noted that the “is filed” language does not dictate when to determine if the privity relationship exists.  Instead, the words “is filed” merely mark the end of the one-year window for filing an IPR petition.  Section 315(b) provides a condition, which if true, dictates that an IPR “may not be instituted.”  Accordingly, the PTAB may not institute if, at the time of institution, the petitioner is subject to the time-bar. 

Editor: Paul Stewart

 

 

Meet the Knobbe Martens Attorneys

One-Year Clock for Filing IPR Petition Applies to Litigants and Parties That Become Privies of the Litigant Prior to Institution
Clayton Henson practices intellectual property law with an emphasis on patent litigation. He received his J.D. from the University of San Diego School of Law where he served as an...
One-Year Clock for Filing IPR Petition Applies to Litigants and Parties That Become Privies of the Litigant Prior to Institution
Mark Kachner is a partner in our Los Angeles office. His practice focuses on litigation, client counseling, and licensing intellectual property assets. Mr. Kachner has litigated cases...
Attorney Finder