GAME AND TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v. WARGAMING GROUP LIMITED
- Nov 19 2019 |
- Category: CAFC Updates
Game and Technology (GAT) appeals the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, ruling that institution of inter partes review was not barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and that claims 1–7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,682,243 (relating to providing an online game, in which ability information of a unit associated with a pilot is enabled to change as ability information of the pilot changes) would have been obvious over the asserted prior art. Specifically, in its final written decision, the Board concluded that neither of the two attempts at service sufficed to trigger § 315(b)’s time bar, determining that the lack of signature and seal rendered the UK service non-compliant with Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that the Cyprus service failed to satisfy Rule 4, which requires that the clerk send the summons and that the form of mail include a signed receipt. Noting that Section 315(b) states that “[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner . . . is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent,” the CAFC finds that the Board did not err in holding that petitioner Wargaming was not properly “served with a complaint alleging infringement of the [’243] patent” more than one year before it filed its IPR petition and that, accordingly, the IPR was not barred under § 315(b). In addition, the CAFC finds that because substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claims 1–7 of the ’243 patent would have been obvious over the asserted prior art, the CAFC affirms.