Insights

Director Says Not Filing Mandatory Notices and PO

Director Says Not Filing Mandatory Notices and POPR Does Not Justify Adverse Judgment, PTAB Litigation Blog

Visit the PTAB Litigation Blog

In a sua sponte Director Review, USPTO Director Vidal vacated an adverse judgement against Patent Owner for Patent Owner’s failure to submit a mandatory notice of information or file a preliminary response to a Petition within the required timeframe.  Shenzhen Xinzexing E-commerce Co. Ltd. v. Shenzhen Carku Technology Co. Ltd., IPR2024-00222.  Director Vidal deemed the PTAB’s adverse judgment was “premature.”

On November 21, 2023, Shenzhen Xinzexing E-commerce Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,643,506 (“the ’506 patent”) covering a portable backup charger. The Petition included a Certificate of Service indicating that the Petition, Power of Attorney, and all supporting exhibits were served on Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) at the correspondence address of record for the ’506 patent.  On November 29, 2023, the PTAB issued a Notice that indicated that Patent Owner may file a preliminary response to the Petition no later than three months from the date of the Notice and advised Patent Owner of the requirement to submit mandatory notice information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) within 21 days of service of the petition.  Patent Owner did neither.

Read the full article at ptablitigationblog.com.

Insights by Jones Day should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the Firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request permission to reprint or reuse any of our Insights, please use our “Contact Us” form, which can be found on our website at www.jonesday.com. This Insight is not intended to create, and neither publication nor receipt of it constitutes, an attorney-client relationship. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Firm.