Viance, LLC v. Koppers Performance Chemicals, Inc.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Holding
The Director denied institution of PGR2026-00023 challenging Koppers’ U.S. Patent No. 12,370,716 B2 in the wood-treatment/performance-chemicals field because Viance failed to identify all real parties in interest, specifically majority owner Venator and co-owner Lanxess. Applying Corning, Tianma, and Sun Pharm., the Director held that RPI status extends to entities with the ability to control the proceeding, not just those exercising unilateral control, and the defect could not be cured because adding RPIs would require a new filing date outside the 9-month PGR window. No prior Board institution decision was reversed or affirmed; the Director denied institution directly.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that PGR petitioners must vet and name corporate parents, members, and owners with potential control before filing, because an RPI omission may be incurable once the 9-month PGR deadline passes. It also confirms that a later IPR listing the correct RPIs will not automatically be treated as a repeat challenge for discretionary-denial purposes.
How this summary was made: Drafted with AI from the Board's or the Director's decision. Read the document itself before relying on the summary. Editorial policy
New to District court litigation? Start with PTAB vs. District Court: Where to Challenge a Patent’s Validity
- ITC · Oct. 16, 2026Certain Storage Containers and Toolboxes, Organizers, Component Boxes, Coolers, and Accessories Used Therewith; Inv. No. 337-TA-1409 (Violation)
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 14, 2026Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. UPL Ltd.
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 6, 2026Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Corteva Agriscience LLC
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 5, 2026O'Reilly Winship LLC v. SnapRays LLC
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 1, 2026Satius Holding, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.