March 11, 2019
Fitch Even partner Paul B. Henkelmann was quoted in today’s issue of Law360 in an article discussing the various questions the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has addressed since the Federal Circuit decision in Click-to-Call v. Ingenio that the voluntary dismissal of an infringement complaint without prejudice does not stop the one-year time limit to file an inter partes review.
In the article, “What The PTAB Has Said About Time-Bars After Click-To-Call,” Paul notes in part, “If you’ve been sued for infringement, whether that complaint gets dismissed voluntarily or involuntarily, you’ve got to be aware that you have a time-bar issue.” Paul also commented on the PTAB’s decision that the one-year time bar can be triggered only by a patent owner’s complaint, cautioning against that assumption since the Federal Circuit has not yet weighed in on this issue.
The article can be read in its entirety on the Law360 website (sub. req.).
For more information on cases discussed in this article, please see these related Fitch Even IP Alerts written by Paul:
- Voluntary Dismissal of Infringement Complaint Doesn't Stop 1-Year Time Limit to File IPR Petition
- Involuntary Dismissal of Infringement Complaint Doesn't Stop 1-Year Time Limit to File IPR Petition
- PTAB Says Weekend Grace Period Applies to the Deadline for Filing an IPR
IP Alert | Federal Circuit Clarifies Equitable Intervening Rights Extend Beyond Protecting Monetary InvestmentsFebruary 26, 2021
On February 19, in John Bean Technologies Corp. v. Morris & Associates, Inc., the Federal Circuit clarified the types of investments that may be entitled to protections under the doctrine of equitable intervening rights, holding that it can extend beyond a monetary investment. Read more
IP Alert | Knowledge Within the Art Does Not Save Means-Plus-Function Claim Term Lacking Corresponding StructureFebruary 19, 2021
On February 12, in Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed that certain of Synchronoss's claims were invalid for indefiniteness, since the claims included a means-plus-function claim term that did not have adequate structural support in the specification. Read more