July 20, 2019

July 19, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 18, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Federal Circuit Holds that the Petitioner Bears the Burden to Show All Real Parties in Interest are Properly Named in a Petition for IPR

Late last week, in Worlds, Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“Board”) must place the burden of persuasion on the Petitioner to show it has named all real parties in interest (“RPIs”) once the patent owner produces some evidence that RPIs were not named.  While the question of what entities are RPIs is itself interesting and is currently working its way through the courts as specific fact patterns are considered case-by-case, this particular case dealt specifically with the question of who bears the burden of proving that all RPIs are named in a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”).

In 2012, Worlds Inc. (“Worlds”) filed a patent infringement suit against Activision Publishing, Inc. (“Activision”) and related entities in district court. In 2014, Worlds notified Activision that it intended to add the video game Destiny as an accused product in the litigation. Destiny is developed by Bungie, Inc. (“Bungie”), an independent video game developer, which is not a party to the litigation between Worlds and Activision.

Six months later, and more than 2.5 years after service of the complaint on Activision, Bungie filed IPRs challenging Worlds’ patents. Worlds contended that Activision should have been named as an RPI to the IPR proceedings, and therefore the Petitioners were time barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) since the IPRs were filed more than one year after Activision was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the challenged patents.  Petitioners are required to name all RPIs when petitioning for inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1).

The Board rejected Worlds’ argument, and instituted review. The Board concluded that “Patent Owner has not demonstrated that Activision is an unnamed real party in interest in this proceeding.” Thus the Board found that the petitions were not time-barred, and proceeded to address the patentability of the instituted claims.

On appeal a panel of the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded.  The panel found that the Petitioner bears the burden to establish that it has complied with the statutory requirement to identify all RPIs once a patent owner produces “some evidence,” more than a mere assertion, that tends to show that a particular third party is an RPI.

Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc. clarifies that the Petitioner bears the burden to establish that it has named all RPIs in its petition for inter partes review.  Going forward, patent owners should continue to review the identification of RPIs in petitions closely as a deficiency in the identification of RPIs is grounds to stop an IPR before the merits are reached.

©1994-2019 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.


About this Author

Peter Snell, Mintz Levin Law Firm, New York, Intellectual Property and Litigation Law Attorney

Peter litigates patent infringement, patent invalidity, and other intellectual property disputes in courts all across the country, including US district courts and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He has examined witnesses at trial, taken and defended depositions of fact and expert witnesses, and conducted discovery.

The areas of technology in which Peter has particular experience include communications systems and networking, packet switching, integrated circuits, semiconductor technology, powerline networks, RFID, electronics...

Daniel Weinger, Mintz Levin Law Firm, Boston, Intellectual Property Litigation Attorney

Daniel's practice in intellectual property focuses on patent litigation, both at the International Trade Commission and the Federal District Courts. Daniel has participated in all phases of patent litigation, including active engagement in multiple evidentiary hearings at the International Trade Commission. He has done work in a variety of technology areas, including computer software, software architecture, GPS, network devices, semiconductors, converged devices, and LED lighting.

Prior to joining Mintz Levin, Daniel worked with Pepper Hamilton LLP and as a database programmer with InterSystems, Corp., where he specialized in programming solutions for database development with a focus primarily on integration engines.

While on leave from Mintz Levin, from 2014 - 2015, Daniel practiced as a Special Assistant District Attorney in the Middlesex County (MA) District Attorney's Office, based in the Framingham, MA, district court.  During that time, Daniel prosecuted and tried numerous drug, larceny, breaking and entering, and motor vehicle cases in bench and jury sessions.  He also argued bail hearings, motions to suppress, and motions to dismiss.