ARTICLE · 01 JUNE 2018

Control Is Key To Identifying Real Parties-In-Interest

McDermott Will & Emery

Explore more from McDermott Will & Emery

Two recent decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) highlight the key factor in identifying real parties-in-interest in an inter partes review (IPR): whether a non-party controls ...

United StatesIntellectual Property

Brittany Washington

Author LinkedIn connections

Two recent decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) highlight the key factor in identifying real parties-in-interest in an inter partes review (IPR): whether a non-party controls or has the ability to control the petitioner's participation in the IPR proceeding. Mobile Tech, Inc. v. Sennco Solutions, Inc., Case No. IPR2017-02199 (PTAB, Apr. 10, 2018) (McGraw, APJ); Puzhen Life USA, LLC v. Esip Series 2, LLC, Case No. IPR2017-02197 (PTAB, Apr. 11, 2018) (Kaiser, APJ).

In Mobile Tech, the patent owner, Sennco Solutions, argued that the PTAB should deny Mobile Tech's petition because it failed to name Mobile Tech's sole owner as a real party-in-interest. In support of its argument, Sennco alleged that Mobile Tech could not make litigation decisions without input from its owner, that its owner received regular updates about the dispute, and that its owner had the sole right to manage Mobile Tech's business.

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

Related Articles

From Storylines To Strategies: Addressing AI-Amplified Trade Secret Leak Threats In Entertainment

United StatesIntellectual Property

Jackson Lewis P.C.

Director Discretionary Decision Denies Institution In IPR Based On A Foreign Government Being An RPI Of The Petitioner

United StatesIntellectual Property

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: September 2026

United StatesIntellectual Property

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

When PTE Goes Wrong

United StatesIntellectual Property

Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Massachusetts High Court Rejects Presumed Harm In Trade Secret Injunction Cases

United StatesIntellectual Property

Holland & Knight

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

Read more about

Intellectual Property
- Patent

Related Comparative Guides

Comparative Guide

Patent Litigation

Comparative Guide

Intellectual Property

Comparative Guide

Franchise & Licensing

Comparative Guide

Trademark Disputes

See more popular content from

Intellectual Property

Denying Cancellation Petition, TTAB Finds That Roman Atwood's "SMILE MORE" Functions As A Mark

The Board dismissed this petition for cancellation of Roman Atwood's registration for the mark SMILE MORE for various goods (stickers, backpacks, shirts) and for retail store service featuring clothing, denying petitioner's claim that the term fails to function as a mark.

United StatesIntellectual Property

Wolf Greenfield & Sacks

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

ICANN Announces Reveal Day And Key Deadlines For 2026 New GTLD Round

On Oct. 7, 2026, at 18:00 UTC, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) will publish every new generic top-level domain (gTLD) application proceeding in the 2026 new gTLD Round, including who applied...

United StatesIntellectual Property

Greenberg Traurig

Empowering Customers To Sell An Exonerated Accused Product

The Federal Circuit reaffirmed that the 1907 Supreme Court decision in Kessler v. Eldred is binding precedent that controls a preclusion analysis unless and until the Supreme Court overrules it.

United StatesIntellectual Property

McDermott Will & Emery

Transatlantic Top Tips: Series Of Intellectual Property Videos

Intellectual property is central to almost everything we do, as businesses or individuals. As a result, intellectual property rights are important assets to most modern businesses.

United StatesIntellectual Property

Womble Bond Dickinson

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

Bots Need Not Apply: Copyright Office Report On Human Authorship Requirements (Video)

The U.S. Copyright Office recently released a report on the human authorship requirement for materials to qualify for copyright protection.

United StatesIntellectual Property

Lowenstein Sandler LLP

U.S. Government Backs Fair Use For AI Training In OpenAI Copyright Litigation

The U.S. government has filed a Statement of Interest of the United States of America under 28 U.S.C. § 517 in the Southern District of New York multidistrict litigation over OpenAI’s use of copyrighted works to train large language models. The filing appears to be the federal government’s first direct intervention in the wave of artificial intelligence (AI) training copyright cases, and it advises the court to treat model training (separate from use of AI to generate outputs) on copyrighted text standing alone as a highly transformative fair use under current law.

United StatesIntellectual Property

Lowenstein Sandler LLP

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

The Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of DMCA CMI Removal Claim Against AI Code Generator – Output Is A New Work Not A Copy Of Training Data

There was a significant ruling in the Doe v. Github case involving training of AI code generator models on open source. The United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court ruling dismissing part of an action brought under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) by programmers against GitHub, Inc., and other defendants. The issues centered on whether defendants removed copyright management information (CMI) from content used to train the AI code generator models.

United StatesIntellectual Property