THE Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is going to decide about PTAB some time soon (probably months from now) and as we wrote earlier this week (including yesterday), PTAB foes are lining up to discredit PTAB. That notably includes Watchtroll, an apologist of patent trolls and a proponent of software patents (obviously still in denial over Alice). They even march in front of the USPTO's facility and burn things (literally). That's how obtuse some of these people are. Bullies. Crybullies.
Patent licensor Uniloc Luxembourg SA—among the top patent buyers in the U.S.-brokered market in the second quarter of 2017—has already gone to court to enforce them, according to data reviewed by Bloomberg BNA.
Just a few weeks after adding new patents to its intellectual property arsenal, Uniloc began asserting them in infringement complaints filed in U.S. district courts against companies, including software giant Apple Inc., Bloomberg Law data show.
Important statement here from the Court against allowing a PTAB IPR patent challenger to continue to file additional IPR petitions after the 1-year deadline of 315(b) via the joinder process of 315(c); and also against stacking of PTAB Board to achieve particular results on rehearing. The court’s statement though is entirely dicta – it actually affirmed the PTAB decision here where these actions occurred.
[...]
On the rehearing, the PTAB Chief (acting on behalf of the PTO Director) shuffled the Board seemingly to change the result – adding two additional judges – Medley and Arbes – with the result that the dissenting opinion became the majority who offered an interesting explanation of the statute. Section 315(c) textually appears to focus on joinder of additional people. However, the text actually allows for “joinder of any person” – and according to the majority that should be interpreted to allow the “same person” to join himself to his prior filing (and in the process bring-along additional claims).
[...]
Unfortunately for the appeal, the Federal Circuit determined that it “need not resolve” the joinder issue because the obviousness finding were proper and were based upon the original petition.
[...]
Part of the reason why this is all dicta is that the PTO Director’s decision whether or not to initiate proceedings is – by statute – not appealable.