In Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Fractus, S.A., the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.'s (Samsung) petitions for inter partes reviews of four patents as untimely under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), finding that the filing of a second complaint for infringement does not authorize an inter partes review if a prior complaint was filed against the petitioner for infringement of the same patents more than one year before the petition's filing date (Case Nos. IPR2014-00008, IPR2014-00011, IPR2014-00012, IPR2014-00013 (PTAB Jan 2, 2014)). Notably, the PTAB rejected Samsung's position that its petitions were timely under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because they were filed within a year after service of the second complaint. This decision may affect whether a party who potentially faces multiple lawsuits for infringement of the same patents by different products decides to seek inter partes review after service of the initial complaint.

Fractus, S.A. (Fractus) owns four patents related to antenna structures. On May 7, 2009, Fractus served Samsung with a complaint alleging infringement of these patents. After a jury verdict in favor of Fractus, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas denied without prejudice Fractus' request for an ongoing royalty for certain Samsung phones that were not adjudicated in the case.

On February 28, 2013, Fractus served Samsung with a complaint alleging that the non-adjudicated phones infringe the four patents asserted in the earlier case.

On October 4, 2013, Samsung filed petitions with the US Patent and Trademark Office requesting inter partes reviews of Fractus' four patents. The PTAB denied Samsung's petitions because they were not filed within a year after service of the first complaint in May 2009. Samsung argued that the earlier complaint did not bar inter partes review because the petitions were filed before the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). The PTAB rejected this argument, noting that 35 U.S.C. § 315 bars institution of an inter partes review based on an infringement complaint served more than one year before filing of the petition requesting review, even if the complaint was served before the passage of the AIA. The PTAB also rejected Samsung's argument that 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) authorizes inter partes reviews so long as they are requested within a year after a party is served with a patent infringement complaint.