Insights: Alerts Joinder Update
On February 12, 2015, the PTAB issued its decision (paper 28) on rehearing in Target Corp v. Destination Maternity Corp., IPR2014-00508. In the decision for which rehearing was sought (paper 18, September 25, 2014), a majority of an expanded board of five judges held that 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) permitted joinder only of petitions filed by parties different from the original petitioner and not of follow on petition(s) by the same petitioner that raised additional issues. Two of the judges dissented from this decision.
On rehearing by a further expanded panel of seven judges, the PTAB has reversed the September 25 decision, and now holds, as a matter of both statutory interpretation and the policies that led to the enactment of IPRs, that 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) does permit joinder of subsequent petitions by the same party. Again, however, three judges (the same three judges who formed the majority in the September 25 decision) dissented, on substantially similar reasoning as their original opinion.
This new decision does not decide the original issue, of whether an additional claim, challenged by the follow-on petition but not the original petition, should be joined. The majority did note that, since the additional claim (22) raised very similar issues as the remaining challenged claims, joinder might be the correct result. (Paper 28, p. 13.) The majority was also careful to reaffirm the Board’s discretion to deny joinder where substantial additional issues are presented in the follow-on petition. (Paper 28, p. 15-16.)
It seem unlikely that the issue has been put to bed. The five judges on the panel that produced the September 25 decision remained on the further expanded panel and maintained their prior positions. The further expansion added two additional judges to form the majority of four.
Theodore G. Brown, III
Paul C. Haughey
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.