ismagination / Shutterstock.com
There are a handful of pointers for anyone affected by real party in interest issues in inter partes reviews, as Amanda Tessar, Bing Ai and Elizabeth Banzhoff of Perkins Coie explain in the second part of their article.
As set forth in part 1 of this article, the question of how a real party in interest (RPI) to an inter partes review (IPR) is determined has presented challenges and uncertainties for litigants. The RPI analysis is critical for both petitioners and patent owners, as a failure to identify an RPI may result in denial of institution, termination of an instituted trial, or severe estoppel consequences for a petitioner (and its RPIs and privies) in a parallel district court or International Trade Commission (ITC) litigation.
Whether a non-petitioner party is an RPI is a highly fact-dependent question and, accordingly, the RPI determination varies with the specific facts in each case. This area of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) law is still in its early stage and is evolving—making it difficult to discern the result the PTAB will reach.
The PTAB decisions to date have touched on different categories of entity situations, including:
The rest of this article is locked for subscribers only. Please login to continue reading.
If you don't have a login, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content. Please use this link and follow the steps.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription to us that we can add you to for FREE, please email Atif Choudhury at achoudhury@worldipreview.com
Amanda Tessar, Bing Ai, Elizabeth Banzhoff, Perkins Coie, IPR, patent, RPI, ITC, patent, PTAB, inter partes review, Paramount Home Entertainment,
