Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 27 JULY 2021

A Cautionary Tale: Paying IPR Filing Fees Via Wire Transfer

Jones Day
Jones Day
Contributor
Jones Day

Jones Day

Jones Day is a global law firm with more than 2,400 lawyers in 40 offices across five continents....

View firm profile
Explore more from Jones Day

A June 25, 2021 decision by the PTAB has clarified that when paying the filing fee via wire transfer, the inter partes review ("IPR") petition filing date is based upon when the funds are made available

United StatesIntellectual Property
Jones Day
Jones Day
Author LinkedIn connections

Visit the PTAB Litigation Blog.

A June 25, 2021 decision by the PTAB has clarified that when paying the filing fee via wire transfer, the inter partes review ("IPR") petition filing date is based upon when the funds are made available to the USPTO.  Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC, IPR2021-00330 (PTAB June 25, 2021).  In a 2-1 decision, the panel majority held that Toshiba's filing fee was not received by the USPTO until the wire transfer funds were in the USPTO account, therefore its IPR petition was time-barred because it was not filed with the accompanying filing fee  within one year of service of the complaint alleging infringement.  The Board clarified that a filing fee paid via wire transfer is not considered received until it has been transferred into the USPTO's bank account.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

UMG v. DistroKid: When AI Becomes A Consumer Protection Issue

Universal Music Group's lawsuit against DistroKid raises a critical question about AI disclosure in consumer markets: when does the use of artificial intelligence become material information that must be disclosed to consumers? The case centers on allegations that DistroKid distributed mass-generated AI music while creating the impression it was created by legitimate human artists, potentially violating existing consumer protection laws even without specific AI disclosure requirements.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

PTAB/USPTO Update - October 2026

The USPTO has released new templates and guidance for AIA trial proceedings, announced key appointments including a Chief AI Officer, and published updated procedures for patent applications and subject matter eligibility declarations. Director Squires delivered multiple addresses emphasizing the constitutional importance of intellectual property rights while the agency expanded its community engagement efforts and international collaboration through WIPO's Global IP Assignment Platform pilot program.
United StatesIntellectual Property
WilmerHale
WilmerHale
Article

The Trademark Scam Field Guide: Look-Alike Filing Sites, Fake USPTO Notices, And How To Get Out If You’ve Been Caught

A business decides to file a trademark. Someone on the team searches for a familiar online legal-services brand, clicks the first result, and lands on a site with a similar-sounding name, a polished design, five-star reviews, and a low flat fee. The application gets filed. Months later the business learns the “service” was not who they thought it was, the filing was signed by someone with no authority to sign it, and the USPTO has suspended the application along with hundreds or thousands of others from the same shop.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Harness IP
Harness IP
Article

Is This Real? Navigating AI Impersonation Under New And Existing Laws

Is this AI-generated, or is it real? As generative AI tools have become increasingly capable of creating realistic images, videos, and audio, they have also made it easier to impersonate real people without their consent. In response, states are increasingly adopting laws that impose civil and criminal liability for certain AI-generated content that replicates an individual’s identity, likeness, voice, or other personal attributes.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Wiley Rein
Wiley Rein
Article

NYSE And Nasdaq Move To 23-Hour Trading Day: Overnight Session Is An Evolution, But Not Yet A Revolution

The New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq are implementing overnight trading sessions starting December 6, 2026, extending the trading day to nearly 23 hours by compressing the daily pause to just one hour. While this evolution toward continuous trading introduces new considerations for corporate actions, disclosure timing, and deal execution, the practical impact varies significantly between NYSE-listed companies,
United StatesFinance and Banking
Jones Day
Jones Day
Article

Ninth Circuit Vacates CFAA Injunction Against Perplexity's Comet AI Agent

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a preliminary injunction against Perplexity AI, determining that when an AI agent acts at a user's direction, it is the user—not the AI company—who "accesses" computer systems under federal and California computer fraud statutes. This landmark appellate decision addresses how existing computer-access laws apply to agentic artificial intelligence and has significant implications...
United StatesMedia, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
Jones Day
Jones Day
Article

China's Supreme Court Issues Landmark Judicial Rules On AI: Implications For Product Liability, IP, Data, And Generative AI

China's Supreme People's Court has issued comprehensive judicial rules addressing artificial intelligence disputes, establishing frameworks for product liability, intellectual property rights, and data protection. These landmark opinions provide critical guidance for global companies navigating AI-related legal risks in China's evolving regulatory landscape.
ChinaIntellectual Property
Jones Day
Jones Day
Article

Indiana Ruling Exposes Email Marketers To $500-Per-Email Class Actions

A federal court ruling in Indiana has opened the door to class action lawsuits against email marketers, holding that promotional subject lines like "SO MANY FREE GIFTS INSIDE" may violate state anti-spam law even when email bodies contain full disclosures. The decision exposes businesses to $500 in statutory damages per email and creates a new litigation hotspot following similar developments in Washington state.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Jones Day
Jones Day
Article

Ninth Circuit: Breach Of Confidence Confers Standing In Health Data Security Case

The Ninth Circuit has ruled that health plan participants whose confidential information was disclosed without authorization have standing to sue in federal court, even without showing financial loss or future harm. This decision, which departs from the risk-based approach many courts have applied since TransUnion, relies on the centuries-old action for breach of confidence and could have significant implications for companies' privacy commitments and data-sharing practices.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Jones Day
Jones Day
Article

EU Commission Pushes for Transposition of the EmpCo Directive on Environmental Claims

The European Commission has initiated infringement procedures against 20 EU Member States for failing to transpose the EmpCo Directive by the March 27, 2026 deadline. This directive aims to combat greenwashing by requiring substantiation of environmental claims and third-party certification for sustainability labels, with full implementation expected by September 27, 2026.
European UnionConsumer Protection
Jones Day
Jones Day
Article

Amendment To The General Rules Under Mexico’s Anti-Money Laundering Law (LFPIORPI): Key Regulatory Changes Under Acuerdo 115/2026

Mexico's comprehensive anti-money laundering framework has undergone a sweeping transformation through Acuerdo 115/2026, introducing mandatory risk-based methodologies, enhanced client due diligence protocols, and automated monitoring requirements. With implementation deadlines beginning March 1, 2027, obligated parties conducting vulnerable activities face compressed timelines to overhaul their compliance infrastructure while navigating heightened enforcement risks and stricter beneficial ownership thresho
MexicoGovernment, Public Sector
Jones Day
Jones Day