Menard vs. Signify: A Key Decision on Real Party in Interest
Last month, your humble editor wrote about the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) initial conclusion that Menard was a real party in interest (RPI) in the ongoing inter partes review (IPR). This conclusion was based on evidence suggesting Menard had a vested interest in the IPR. However, USPTO Director Kathi Vidal overturned the PTAB’s decision, stating that Menard’s involvement did not meet the criteria for control, funding, or influence necessary to qualify as an RPI. This reversal has become a critical point in the case, shaping the legal strategies of both parties.
In response to this ruling, Signify requested a rehearing from Director Vidal, but their request was denied. The denial is another blow to Signify’s case, as the ruling likely means the IPR will proceed. As a result, the associated litigation will remain stayed—a situation that benefits Menard by keeping pressure off while the IPR unfolds. This is exactly what Signify aims to avoid, as their strategy depends on applying maximum legal pressure on Menard.
Adding to the complexity, Director Vidal announced her resignation in November, leaving questions about how future decisions in this case will be handled.
