Source: https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/case-opinion/b/case/posts/2014-pat-app-lexis-8830
Timestamp: 2020-07-11 05:16:09
Document Index: 46089934

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 315', '§ 312', '§ 315', '§ 312', '§ 315', '§ 315']

2014 Pat. App. LEXIS 8830 | LexisNexis Case Opinion
2014 Pat. App. LEXIS 8830
June 27, 2014, Decided
Cases 1 IPR2014-00293 (Patent 8,314,689), Paper 18 IPR2014-00293; IPR2014-00294 (Patent 8,314,689), Paper 18 IPR2014-00294; IPR2014-00296 (Patent 8,324,552), Paper 14 IPR2014-00296; IPR2014-00297 (Patent 8,324,552), Paper 14 IPR2014-00297; IPR2014-00298 (Patent 8,324,552), Paper 18 IPR2014-00298
BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
Service Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and Real Party In Interest Under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2)
Petitioner TRW Automotive US LLC filed two Petitions, IPR2014-00293 and IPR2014-00294, requesting inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,314,689 B2 ("the '689 patent") on December 24, 2013, and filed three Petitions, IPR2014-00296, IPR2014-00297, and IPR2014-00298, requesting [*2] inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,324,552 B2 ("the '552 patent") on December 26, 2013. In each of these proceedings, Patent Owner Magna Electronics, Inc. filed a Preliminary Response: 2
IPR2014-00293
("Pet.")
("Prelim. Resp.")
IPR2014-00294
Patent Owner contends that (1) each of the respective Petitions is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted based on a petition "filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement [*3] of the patent, " and (2) Petitioner failed to "identif[y] all real parties in interest" as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). Prelim. Resp. 1-2.
Following a conference call on April 10, 2014, among respective counsel for Petitioner and Patent Owner, we ordered the parties to submit additional briefing "addressing the issue of when Petitioner was 'served with a complaint' alleging infringement of the respective patents under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)." Paper 10 ("Order"). The Order divided seventeen of the eighteen petitions into two groups, i.e., Group 1 and Group 2, in light of the common facts presented in each group. Id. at 3. Each of the proceedings identified above all fall within Group 2, and Petitioner filed a Group 2 Brief addressing the common issues in each of the instant proceedings. Paper 11 ("Brief"). Subsequently, Patent Owner filed a Reply in each of the instant proceedings. Paper 12 ("Reply"). 3
We note that this Decision only addresses the petitions in Group 2. Because the analysis herein applies to each of these proceedings, our Decision likewise is applicable to each proceeding. Based on the record before us, for the reasons that follow, we do not deny the Petitions under §§ 315(b) and 312(a)(2). 4
2014 Pat. App. LEXIS 8830 *
TRW AUTOMOTIVE US LLC,; Petitioner; v.; MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC.,; Patent Owner
patent, amended complaint, real party in interest, inter partes, infringement, electronic, prelim, instant proceeding, district court, entity