United States: Risks Of Waiting To File An IPR Following Click-To-Call

Last Updated: November 19 2018
Article by Nathan R. Speed and Stuart V.C. Duncan Smith

(As published by Thomson Reuters Westlaw Journal IP)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in a recent en banc decision that the one-year time limit that an accused infringer has to request an inter partes review, or IPR, of a patent does not restart when the lawsuit asserting the challenged patent is voluntarily dismissed "without prejudice."

In doing so, the court reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's more than half-a-decade-long practice of treating such a dismissal as resetting the one-year time limit.

The Federal Circuit's decision places increased pressure on defendants to file IPR petitions in scenarios where they previously would not have and reduces the options available for resolving patent infringement lawsuits early and inexpensively.

THE DECISION

In Click-to-Call Technologies LP v. Ingenio Inc., 899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit considered for the first time the meaning of the statutory time limit or "time bar" set forth in Section 315(b) of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C.A. § 315(b).

That section provides that an IPR proceeding may not be instituted "if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than one year after the date on which the petitioner ... is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent."

Prior to Click-to-Call, the board had held that a lawsuit dismissed without prejudice reset the one-year time bar of Section 315(b).

In other words, while service of the complaint started the one-year clock, the clock stopped and the time bar was reset if the lawsuit was later dismissed without prejudice.

The facts

Click-to-Call involved an IPR petition that Ingenio filed in 2013 against claims of a Click-to-Call patent. Ingenio filed its IPR petition less than a year after Click-to-Call served it with a complaint for infringement in 2012.

After reviewing Ingenio's petition, the PTAB instituted an IPR trial against the challenged claims and ultimately found the claims unpatentable.

Throughout the IPR proceeding, Click-to-Call argued that Ingenio was time-barred from requesting the IPR proceeding because Ingenio had been previously served with a complaint alleging infringement of the challenged patent.

That prior service occurred in 2001 — more than a decade before the second lawsuit was served in 2012 — when a prior owner of Click-to-Call's patent had sued Ingenio for infringement. That prior lawsuit, however, was dismissed without prejudice in 2003.

Consistent with its then-standard practice, the PTAB rejected Click-to-Call's argument, finding that the dismissal of the prior lawsuit without prejudice nullified the original service, reset the clock on the statutory time bar and freed Ingenio to request an IPR proceeding in 2013.

Click-to-Call focused its Federal Circuit appeal on whether the board's practice of resetting the one-year clock when a complaint was dismissed without prejudice was consistent with Section 315(b).

Initially, Click-to-Call's appeal was twice dismissed because the Federal Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the PTAB's interpretation of Section 315(b).

At the time of the prior dismissals, Federal Circuit precedent held that it was barred from reviewing a board determination to institute IPR proceedings and that such a bar included a bar on reviewing whether the PTAB properly applied Section 315(b).

That changed, however, when the court issued its en banc decision in Wi-Fi One LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 837 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which held that judicial review is available for a patent owner to challenge the PTAB's determination that a petition was not subject to the time bar requirement of Section 315(b).

Following Wi-Fi One, the court agreed to rehear Click-to-Call's appeal and address — for the first time — whether the board's treatment of dismissals without prejudice was consistent with the language of Section 315(b).

The Federal Circuit's analysis

The Click-to-Call decision issued as a three-judge panel opinion with 10 out of the 12 members of the full en banc court joining footnote 3 of the panel's opinion.

That footnote succinctly held that the Section 315(b) "time bar applies to bar institution when an IPR petitioner was served with a complaint for patent infringement more than one year before filing its petition, but the district court action in which the petitioner was so served was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice."

The panel opinion's analysis — which the full court did not necessarily embrace because the en banc nature of the opinion was limited to footnote 3 — largely began and ended with the language of the statute.

The panel found that the statutory language was unambiguous and that its plain terms mandated that the "time bar is implicated once a party receives notice through official delivery of a complaint in a civil action, irrespective of subsequent events," such as a dismissal without prejudice.

The panel said that even if the statute was not clear, Federal Circuit cases on which the PTAB relied would not help Ingenio.

Those cases included language suggesting that dismissal of an appeal without prejudice essentially means the appeal was never filed.

But the panel explained that those cases only meant that appeals dismissed without prejudice would not operate to toll any other deadlines, and that Ingenio was citing them for the opposite principle that it would.

Thus, based on the plain language of the statute, the Federal Circuit reversed the board's long-standing practice of treating complaints dismissed without prejudice, for purposes of the Section 315(b) time bar, as if they were never filed.

The ramifications of this decision are significant.

WHAT CLICK-TO-CALL MEANS FOR LITIGANTS

By mandating that the clock for the Section 315(b) time bar begins upon service of a complaint and cannot be reset, the Federal Circuit has substantially narrowed the mechanisms available for parties to inexpensively extract themselves from litigation through mutually agreed-upon (and often mutually beneficial) voluntary dismissals without prejudice.

Before Click-to-Call, it was not uncommon for the parties to a patent lawsuit to agree to dismiss a lawsuit without prejudice in exchange for either a small amount of money or some other form of consideration, such as a promise from the defendant not to request an IPR proceeding against the asserted patent unless a second suit was filed.

Such dismissals without prejudice typically occurred early in a case and were the result of early recognition by the parties that the suit as then constituted did not merit litigation.

For example, the plaintiff might not have known that the defendant had a strong noninfringement position for its current products or that the sales associated with the accused product did not warrant the costs of the litigation.

Similarly, a defendant might believe it has a strong defense but also recognize that the cost of pursing such a defense substantially outweighs the low settlement value the plaintiff is willing to accept for a simple dismissal without prejudice.

In these scenarios, dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice was beneficial to both parties. It reduced ongoing litigation costs and allowed each to live to fight another day.

Click-to-Call makes it impossible for parties to have cases dismissed without prejudice in a mutually beneficial way.

Now, defendants must seriously consider requesting IPR proceedings even in situations where they previously would have agreed to a dismissal without prejudice.

For example, before Click-to-Call a defendant might have accepted a dismissal without prejudice because its then-available accused products were not significant sources of revenue but its future products would be.

In that scenario, removing the threat of the lawsuit through a dismissal without prejudice made sense as the defendant could always file an IPR proceeding later if the plaintiff refiled the suit and named the future products.

Following Click-to-Call, such a defendant would seriously need to consider requesting the IPR proceeding after being served with the first complaint even though that defendant's future products might not yet be available (and perhaps would not be available for years).

A defendant that fails to do so forever loses its opportunity to avail itself of the IPR process.

The threat of such follow-on litigation is real, and Click-to-Call now provides additional incentives to plaintiffs to strategically file lawsuits and then dismiss them with prejudice early on.

While, as the Click-to-Call concurrence noted, a plaintiff might face questions (and possible sanctions) from a district court if it simply refiles the exact same lawsuit a year after voluntarily dismissing without prejudice its first lawsuit, the more likely scenario is the one outlined above in which the plaintiff files a "new" suit that asserts the same patent against the same defendant (or its successor-in-interest) but against a different, and perhaps more profitable, set of products.

Such a suit is much less likely to be viewed as sanctionable, especially if the new suit could not have been brought because the different set of products were not previously available. But such a suit is highly valuable to the plaintiff as the asserted patent would no longer be subject to an IPR proceeding thus reducing both the likelihood of a stay and pretrial invalidation of the patent.

Plaintiffs, too, must recalibrate their strategies.

Filing a suit and offering to dismiss it while the parties negotiate a settlement no longer resets the clock for when the defendant must request an IPR proceeding, and so defendants will often still feel compelled to seek an IPR in all cases.

Plaintiffs will thus want to think twice before provoking an otherwise reluctant defendant into requesting an IPR proceeding.

While much attention has focused on Click-to-Call's impact on the use of voluntary dismissals without prejudice, such dismissals can also occur as the result of contested motion practice.

For example, a defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for, among other things, lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue. If the defendant prevails, the result is often that the complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

Thus, following Click-to-Call, a prevailing defendant may find itself in the difficult position of having successfully moved to dismiss the lawsuit but not knowing whether the plaintiff will fix the issues that led to the dismissal and refile the suit.

If there is a chance that the plaintiff will refile the complaint, in light of Click-to-Call the prevailing defendant would be wise to prepare a request for an IPR proceeding.

In sum, Click-to-Call will likely increase the cost of patent litigation.

Defendants now may need to petition for a review of all claims of a patent asserted in a complaint that could later be dismissed without prejudice, whereas before they may have waited to see whether the plaintiff refiles the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs may find defendants unwilling to prolong negotiations once a complaint is served, leading to litigation that may have previously been avoidable.

JUST THE LATEST UPHEAVAL TO PENDING IPRS

Click-to-Call is also notable for its potential impact on pending IPRs.

Patent owners that have argued throughout an IPR proceeding that prior service of a complaint barred the petitioner from requesting the IPR proceeding in the first instance have likely preserved the argument and may now ask the board to dismiss the pending proceedings.

Relying on the PTAB's prior precedent, patent owners that did not raise the argument previously will likely point to application of the time bar as a jurisdictional issue and argue that a party cannot waive limits to the board's jurisdiction.

In either scenario, pending IPR proceedings are likely to be dismissed, and many challenged claims that were on the doorstep of invalidation will be saved.

Click-to-Call is just the latest event to create new complexities for IPR proceedings.

Earlier this spring, the Supreme Court's decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), overturned the board's partial institution practice — that is, its practice of instituting on only some claims challenged in a IPR petition.

The Supreme Court in SAS held that the PTAB must institute an IPR proceeding against all challenged claims so long as the petitioner meets its burden of demonstrating it has a reasonable likelihood of succeeding against one challenged claim.

As a consequence, the PTAB has retroactively expanded many pending IPR proceedings to include claims and additional arguments on which patent owners thought that they had already prevailed.

Even more recently, the PTO announced that it was considering a regulation that would change the claim construction standard applied in an IPR proceeding from the "broadest reasonable interpretation" that the board has been using to the "plain and ordinary meaning" that district courts apply.

Notably, the PTO indicated that it planned to apply the new regulation to all future and pending IPR proceedings, raising questions about how the board should implement that in IPR proceedings where the parties have largely litigated the case already under the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard.

IPR proceedings are becoming more complex, and recent changes in what was believed to be settled law have only added to that complexity.

Though IPR proceedings have existed for over six years, and thousands have been litigated in that time, parties should not take anything for granted.

WATCH FOR FURTHER CHANGES

Click-to-Call lays the responsibility for its result at Congress' feet: Congress wrote the law, and the court sees itself as merely carrying out Congress' choices.

As the decision explained, quoting SAS, "It is Congress' job to enact policy and it is th[e] court's job to follow the policy Congress has prescribed."

Given the popularity of IPR, and given the difficult situation that defendants now face when a lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice, a congressional amendment to  the statute would not be surprising.

An amendment is also likely because many influential industry groups, including those representing software and technology companies, strongly support IPR proceedings.

Questions left to be answered

Although the Click-to-Call decision articulated the general rule that dismissal without prejudice does not reset the one-year time bar, the decision left open the possibility that the rule would not apply in other situations.

For example, the decision raised the possibility that a reissue of a patent, which results in a new patent with new claims, would effectively reset the one-year time period, because that new patent would not have been previously asserted.

The court contrasted reissuing a patent with a re-examination, which did occur in this case but does not result in a new patent and thus falls within the general rule.

Notably, the court concluded that re-examinations would not reset the one-year limitations period even where a re-examination substantially changes the scope of the claims.

The decision also acknowledged the possibility that where multiple defendants are sued and some of them are outside the one-year window, those defendants may be able to pursue an IPR while shielding the barred defendant from the decision-making process.

Whether that would work turns on whether the barred defendant is a "real party-in-interest," which is a fact-specific question that can depend on who funds and controls the IPR petition.

Decision shapes strategies

Click-to-Call changes how parties should shape their strategies. For patent owners and accused infringes alike, the options are now more limited, which will likely increase the cost of patent litigation.

Although Click-to-Call is the latest change to the status quo of IPR proceedings, its final implications are not yet known. Congress, the PTO and the courts still have questions to answer.

As always, parties in an IPR proceeding cannot take anything for granted.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions