In the evolving landscape of patent law, recent PTAB rulings provide guidance for those seeking to navigate the intricacies of time bar regulations. This has come to light especially in Lightricks Ltd. v. Plotograph, Inc., IPR2023-00153, a recent dispute about service of the pleadings that shed light on the implications of defective service on IPR filings. (Read more here).
According to 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), the institution of an IPR is automatically prohibited if the “petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner…is served with the complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” In other words, a petitioner has a 1-year deadline from the date they’re served with a complaint to request IPR proceedings.
However, the case Lightricks Ltd. v. Plotograph, Inc. highlighted an important nuance – the effective service of the related district court pleading on a petitioner is crucial for this one-year statutory time bar on IPR filings to commence. In this particular case, because the service of the pleading was defective, the time bar was deemed not to have been triggered.
This ruling serves as a vital reminder for legal professionals working in corporations and law firms alike: the legalities of serving a complaint are pivotal. Not only can they dictate the shape of ensuing proceedings, but they can also have significant repercussions on critical aspects such as the triggering of time bars. Rigorous adherence to the proper processes of service can provide a tactical advantage in patent infringement cases and prevent unintended consequences.
While patent law continues to adapt to the modern legal landscape, every development – no matter how nuanced – can carry profound implications for corporations and their legal teams. As such, staying privy to current interpretations and applications of patent laws helps ensure a robust defense and offense in patent-related disputes.