Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Whether, under § 314(d), a party may appeal the PTAB's application of § 315(b)'s time-bar provision made during its decision to institute IPR.
2. Whether § 315(b) precludes the PTAB from instituting IPR when the petitioner sought IPR more than a year after it was served with a patent infringement complaint that was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the PTAB's application of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)'s time-bar provision in its decision to institute IPR is appealable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), and whether § 315(b) precludes the PTAB from instituting IPR when the petitioner sought IPR more than a year after being served with a patent infringement complaint that was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice
2020-04-27
Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, 590 U. S. ___ (2020).
2020-04-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/24/2020.
2019-06-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2019.
2019-05-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2019.
2019-05-23
Reply of petitioner Superior Communications, Inc. filed.
2019-05-14
Brief of respondent Voltstar Technologies, Inc. in opposition filed.
2019-04-19
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 14, 2019.
2019-04-18
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 22, 2019 to May 14, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-03-21
Response Requested. (Due April 22, 2019)
2019-03-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2019.
2019-02-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 8, 2019)