![Director Says Not Filing Mandatory Notices and PO](/-/media/images/publications/2024/08/director-says-not-filing-mandatory-notices-and-popr-does-not-justify-adverse-judgment/articleimage/director-says-not-filing-mandatory-notices-and-po.jpeg?rev=2027cda69ff545a1a83e89146b3cbfd6&la=en&h=675&w=1080&hash=19218CF351D772488D190E6A01752DAA)
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.