Source: https://www.orangebookblog.com/2013/11/index.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:32:44+00:00

Document:
On November 13, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a decision denying the petition for inter partes review filed by BioDelivery Sciences targeting MonoSol Rx's U.S. Patent 7,425,292. The '292 patent relates to thin films with non-self-aggregating uniform heterogeneity for use in drug delivery systems.
BioDelivery filed its petition for inter partes review on June 12, 2013, more than one year after MonoSol served BioDelivery with a complaint asserting infringement of the '292 patent, but less than one year after an ex parte reexamination proceeding terminated upon issuance of a reexamination certificate that confirmed or amended each of the original claims.
A reexamination certificate merely "incorporates in the patent any proposed amended or new claim determined to be patentable." 35 U.S.C. § 307(a). The reexamination certificate itself states: "The patent is hereby amended as indicated below." The identical reference in § 315(b), to the "date on which the petitioner . . . is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent" indicates that the timeliness analysis is to be made with reference to "the patent."
On October 16, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a decision denying the petition for inter partes review filed by St. Jude Medical targeting Volcano Corp.'s U.S. Patent No. 7,134,994 ("the '994 patent"). The '994 patent relates to a multifunctional invasive cardiovascular diagnostic measurement device.
The Board denied St. Jude's petition because it was filed more than one year after Volcano served a counterclaim asserting a claim of infringement in a prior district court suit between the parties (St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc., et al. v. Volcano Corp., 1:10-cv-00631 (D. Del.)).
Nothing in the legislative history indicates that Congress intended to apply the § 315(b) time limit to some, rather than all, accused infringers. Construing "complaint" in § 315(b) restrictively, to exclude counterclaims that present allegations of infringement, would have just that effect. It would leave a patent open to serial attack, even after years of patent infringement litigation, in the event that the accused infringer is accused of infringement only via a counterclaim.
This decision comes as further development of the Board’s previous interpretation of § 315(b) in Accord Healthcare v. Eli Lilly and Co., IPR2013-00356, where the Board found that the filing of a second complaint in the second of two prior lawsuits did not reset the time for filing a petition.
St. Jude's petition can be found here, and Volcano's patent owner response can be found here.

References: § 307
 § 315
 v. 
 § 315
 § 315
 § 315
 v.