Morrison Foerster is an international law firm with lawyers practicing throughout the United States, Asia, and Europe. Click to discover more.

mofo_share_image.jpg

Morrison Foerster

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Terms / Notices

Cookies

Privacy Policy

Attorney Advertising

Secure Login

Alumni

  Facebook

MoFo Facebook

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Twitter

MoFo Twitter

YouTube

MoFo Youtube

Morrison Foerster - Footer

You have not solved the recaptcha challenge yet or session expired, try again.

Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html">Privacy Policy</a>, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

Feedback

mofo-logo-2022.svg

People

Capabilities

Resources

About

Culture

Offices

Careers

Stay Connected

Alex Yap and Jean Nguyen authored an article for Law360 covering the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) precedential decisions in SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp. and RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time, addressing what constitutes a privy or real party in interest (RPI) who may benefit from the outcome of Leahy-Smith America Invents Act proceedings, and when one must be identified.



PTAB Offers Clarity on Real Parties in Interest in IPRs

About Morrison Forester

people-default-header-desktop.jpg

people-default-header-mobile.jpg

Default Meta Data

Alex Yap and Jean Nguyen authored an article for Law360 covering the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) precedential decisions in SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp. and RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time, addressing what constitutes a privy or real party in interest (RPI) who may benefit from the outcome of Leahy-Smith America Invents Act proceedings, and when one must be identified.“The recent precedential PTAB cases present a mixed bag for IPR petitioners,” the authors wrote. “Although SharkNinja removes a procedural gotcha that had tripped up many petitioners, RPX makes it more difficult for member organizations to win RPI challenges when a member is time-barred or estopped.”They added: “RPX also injects uncertainty into the business model of defensive patent member organizations, as a member who is time-barred or estopped from filing a petition may affect another member’s ability to do so.”Read the <a href="https://media2.mofo.com/v3/assets/blt5775cc69c999c255/blt6c47bc74956ae933/6273ef7a0cffdf1eb136b556/210125-ptab-offers-clarity-on-real.pdf" target="_blank">full article</a>.