Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 04 MARCH 2022

RPI: Not Quite A Jurisdictional Requirement

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

Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) declined to terminate an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding despite the Petitioner's alleged failure to identify all the real parties-in-interest (RPIs).

United StatesIntellectual Property

Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) declined to terminate an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding despite the Petitioner's alleged failure to identify all the real parties-in-interest (RPIs). Unified Patents, LLC v. Voice Tech Corp., IPR2020-01018, Paper 46, 7 (December 13, 2021).

In 2020, Voice Tech asserted U.S. Patent No. 10,491,679 ('679 Patent) against Mycroft AI, Inc., and Unified Patents later filed an IPR petition seeking invalidation of the '679 Patent. The petition identified Unified Patents as the only RPI, but Voice Tech disagreed and asserted that Mycroft is an unnamed RPI. Unified Patents, LLC v. Voice Tech Corp., IPR2020-01018, Paper 35, 2-3 (August 10, 2021). Citing heavily to RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time, Voice Tech argued that Mycroft should be considered an RPI primarily because Mycroft is a subscriber to Unified Patents' services and also has an interest in seeing the '679 patent invalidated. Id. at 4-13. Voice

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