The USPTO Director clarified that competitors in a multi-defendant lawsuit do not automatically share a ‘significant relationship’ to justify a discretionary denial of a meritorious IPR petition. This means that the mere existence of a competitive relationship does not inherently qualify a party for denial when they file an inter partes review, thereby opening pathways for valid claims to proceed in front of the PTAB despite shared litigation contexts.
In the November decision regarding Luminex, it was determined that standard indemnification agreements alone, without additional supporting evidence, do not qualify as creating real party in interest or privity relationships. This conclusion underscores the necessity for a more substantial connection or evidence beyond basic contractual agreements in order for a customer or supplier's interests to be sufficiently aligned for the purposes of passing IPR restrictions.
Collection
[
|
...
]