One-Year Clock for Filing IPR Petition Applies to Litigants and Parties That Become Privies of the Litigant Prior to Institution
Contributed by Knobbe Martens. Originally published on Patexia; republished here as part of the LexDana archive.
POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC v. SEMICONDUCTOR COMPONENTS
Before Prost, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: An IPR is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) if, at the time of institution, the petitioner is in privity with a party who was served with a complaint for patent infringement over a year before the petition was filed.
In 2009, Power Integrations sued Fairchild for patent infringement. After expiration of Fairchild’s one-year IPR window under § 315(b), Semiconductor Components—who was not a party to the litigation—petitioned for IPR. At the time Semiconductor Components petitioned, they had entered into a merger agreement with Fairchild. The merger closed after the IPR petition was filed, but before the PTAB issued its institution decision. In instituting the IPR, the PTAB focused its § 315(b) analysis on when the petition was filed, and asked whether Semiconductor Components and Fairchild were in privity on that date. Because the merger had not closed at the time of filing, the PTAB determined that the petition was not time-barred.
The Federal Circuit reversed. Section 315(b) states that an IPR “may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is 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.” The Federal Circuit noted that the “is filed” language does not dictate when to determine if the privity relationship exists. Instead, the words “is filed” merely mark the end of the one-year window for filing an IPR petition. Section 315(b) provides a condition, which if true, dictates that an IPR “may not be instituted.” Accordingly, the PTAB may not institute if, at the time of institution, the petitioner is subject to the time-bar.
Editor: Paul Stewart
Written by: Clayton R. Henson & Mark Kachner
More insights
Fresh From the Bench: Latest Precedential Patent Case
Ridge Corp. et al. v. Kirk NationaLease Co. et al. , Appeal No. 2025-1254 (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2026) In its only precedential patent opinion last week, the Federal Circuit considered an appeal of a preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court…
Fresh From the Bench: Latest Precedential Patent Cases
CASE OF THE WEEK Wyeth LLC v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP , Appeal No. 2024-2325 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2026) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court ruling reversing a $107.5 million jury verdict against AstraZeneca in a case…
Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., Appeal No. 2025-1427 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 23, 2026)
CASE OF THE WEEK Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., Appeal No. 2025-1427 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 23, 2026) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment invalidating all claims of Enanta’s Patent No. 11,358,953 as…