Takeaway: Authorization for the filing of a motion for sanctions will not be granted in the absence of a showing of any misconduct under 37 C.F.R. § 42.12(a).

In its Order, the Board denied Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a motion for sanctions under 37 C.F.R. § 42.12(a). Sanctions were warranted, according to Patent Owner, because it was the business model of Petitioner to circumvent the time bar set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), to avoid the efficiencies created by estoppel, and to harass Patent Owner.

In opposition, Petitioner cited 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) for the proposition that states that any person other than a patent owner may file a petition to institute inter partes review of one or more claims of a U.S. patent.  Petitioner also noted that it does not have any relationship to any party to any lawsuit involving Patent Owner.

The Board sided with Petitioner, finding that Patent Owner had not presented a sufficient basis in support of its request for authorization to file a motion for sanctions. As noted by the Board, authorization for the filing of a motion for sanctions will not be granted in the absence of a showing of any misconduct under 37 C.F.R. § 42.12(a).

Iron Dome LLC v. Chinook Licensing DE LLC, IPR2014-00674 
Paper 9: Order on Conduct of the Proceeding 
Dated: September 10, 2014 
Patent: 7,047,482
Before: William V. Saindon, James P. Calve, and Treton A. Ward 
Written by: Ward