Supreme Court Asked Whether “Control” over the IPR is Required to Trigger the 315(b) Time Bar

by Dennis Crouch WesternGeco LLC, v.  ION Geophysical Corp. (Supreme Court 2019) [Petition] In 2018, WesternGeco seemingly won its international-patent-damages case against ION — with the court agreeing that lost-profit damages are available even for extra-territorial sales.  After winning its $100 million trial against ION, WesternGeco sued another competitor, Petroleum Geo-Services (PGS), for infringement.  PGS then challenged the asserted patents in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding that resulted in all of the claims being cancelled as obvious or anticipated. 35 U.S.C. §315(b) bars the Patent Office Director from instituting an IPR proceeding on a petition “filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.”  By the end of its infringement trial, ION was time-barred — however, PTO still…

Read more detail on Recent Intellectual Property Law posts –

This entry was posted in Intellectual Property and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply