Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 01 APRIL 2020

No Same-Party Or New Issue Joinder For IPRs At The PTAB

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

In Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, No. 2018-1400 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, 2020) the Federal Circuit found that the text of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ...

United StatesIntellectual Property

In Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, No. 2018-1400 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, 2020) the Federal Circuit found that the text of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) does not authorize same-party or new issue joinder to an existing IPR. 

Windy City filed suit against Facebook alleging infringement of several of its patents.  Facebook timely filed IPR petitions challenging certain claims of each of the asserted patents.  More than one year after service of the complaint Facebook filed new IPR petitions challenging additional claims from the same patents, along with motions for joinder to the original IPRs.  The Board instituted Facebook’s IPRs and granted the motions for joinder.  After the Board issued its final written decision finding some challenged claims obvious, Windy City appealed the Board’s decisions.

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.

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.

See more popular content from