Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 26 FEBRUARY 2018

Be Advised: Settlement Does Not Necessarily End An IPR Or PGR, PTAB Litigation Blog

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

The AIA expressly anticipates and permits a patent owner and a petitioner to reach a settlement during the pendency of a post-grant proceeding.

United StatesIntellectual Property

The AIA expressly anticipates and permits a patent owner and a petitioner to reach a settlement during the pendency of a post-grant proceeding. For IPRs, 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) is entitled "Settlement" and provides, in pertinent part:

An inter partes review instituted under this chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and the patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed. * * *  If no petitioner remains in the inter partes review, the Office may terminate the review or proceed to a final written decision under section 318(a).

A parallel provision governs party settlements and requests to terminate PGRs (including CBMs).  See 35 U.S.C. § 327(a).

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.

See more popular content from