July 24, 2014

America Invents Act - Limitation on Joinder

On September 16, 2011, the America Invents Act (AIA) ushered in major changes to the U.S. patent system, including changes affecting assertion of patent infringement against multiple, unrelated accused infringers. Effective upon enactment, the AIA added 35 U.S.C. § 299 to limit joinder of accused infringers in district court actions. 

Now, accused infringers may only be joined in one action as defendants or counterclaim defendants, or be consolidated for trial, by meeting the following statutory requirements:

 (1) that the right to relief asserted against the parties jointly, severally, or in the alternative, is with respect to or arises out of the same transaction or occurrence relating to infringement of the same accused product or process, and

(2) that questions of fact common to all defendants or counterclaim defendants will arise. 

35 U.S.C. § 299(a).

Addition of Section 299 culminated as a result of efforts to limit the ability of patent holders to join multiple, unrelated accused infringers based solely on infringement of the same patent or patents asserted against an accused infringer. As a result, joinder is now prohibited where the sole basis rests on allegations that each defendant or counterclaim defendant infringes the patent or patents in suit. 35 U.S.C. § 299(b).

Accused Infringers may waive the joinder limitation

Realizing that some defendants or counterclaim defendants, though unrelated, may want to be joined in a single, consolidated action, Section 299(c) provides for waiver of the limitation. A defendant or counterclaim defendant, however, can only waive the limitation as to itself. 

The joinder limitations do not apply to Hatch-Waxman actions

Section 299(a) specifically excludes actions where infringement is asserted under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2), which is the statutory mechanism Congress enacted to create the artificial act of infringement upon the filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) with the Food and Drug Administration. Given the special procedures Congress created to expedite litigation associated with ANDA filings, the same concerns for joinder of multiple ANDA filers, who filed ANDAs on the same drug, do not apply.

© 2014 Sterne Kessler

About the Author

Jeremiah B. Frueauf, Biotechnology, Chemical Attorney, Sterne Kessler, law firm

Mr. Frueauf is an associate in the Biotechnology/Chemical Group where he counsels domestic and international clients on the preparation, prosecution, and management of complex worldwide patent portfolios.  He is also experienced in the research and preparation of freedom-to-operate, validity, infringement, and patentability analyses.


About the Author

Lori A. Gordon Intellectual Property Litigation Attorney Sterne Kessler law firm

Lori Gordon is a director in both the Litigation and Electronics practice groups, focusing on inter partes matters, including district court litigation and contested case proceedings at the USPTO.  She has been involved in over a dozen district court patent litigations since joining the firm, acting as lead counsel for the claim construction, infringement and validity aspects of these cases.  In addition, she is currently acting as lead counsel in 11 AIA contested case proceedings at the USPTO. Ms. Gordon also has extensive experience handling reexamination...


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.