# The one-year clock runs on paper, not excuses.

Ten designated rulings test what starts the IPR deadline, what stops it, and when a petition counts as filed. Seven went against the petitioner. The three that went its way each turned on a specific document: a missing summons, a motion that wasn’t a complaint, a bank confirmation.

Sources checked October 16, 2026

**11 days** Luv N’ Care’s petition missed the one-year deadline after a failed fee payment. It was barred.

## Before you read

An infringement complaint is served without a summons. Does the one-year IPR clock start?

- Yes, on service of the complaint
- No: the petitioner must be served with a summons first
- Only if the court later dismisses

No. In Motorola v. Arnouse, the petitioner “must be served with a summons before the one-year time period” begins.

## Eleven days late

Luv N’ Care was served with an infringement complaint on March 31, 2016. On March 30, 2017, with a day to spare, it uploaded its IPR petition. The deposit account didn’t have enough money, and the receipt warned that payment had not cleared. Funds went in the next day. Payment wasn’t made until April 11, 2017, and that became the filing date. Luv N’ Care, pp. 2–7

The Board accorded the April 11 date and denied institution. Adding money to the account was not the same as paying. Luv N’ Care

## Three ways to be too late

The IPR statute closes the door three ways. A petition “filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent” can’t be instituted. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)

## Ten rulings: timely or barred?

Each card gives the facts the Board relied on. Guess, then tap.

## The scorecard

The three wins turned on narrow, documented facts, not on any broad exception. And winning the timing question isn’t the same as getting a trial: Toshiba won it and was still denied. Toshiba, pp. 10–17

## What to do

Choose your side.

## Cuts the other way

Two of the precedential decisions, GoPro and Infiltrator, rest on a Federal Circuit judgment, Click-to-Call v. Ingenio (2018), that the Supreme Court later vacated on reviewability grounds in Thryv v. Click-to-Call (2020), without reaching the one-year-bar question. Thryv How the Board has treated GoPro and Infiltrator since Thryv has not been checked.

Four of the ten are informative and don’t bind. Several date from 2013 to 2019, and the Office’s fee and filing systems have changed since. Oracle v. Click-to-Call, once designated precedential only as to § III.A, was de-designated in May 2020 and isn’t counted. USPTO notice, May 2020

## The takeaway

Before you report the petition filed, read the confirmation and check the filing date the Office gave it.

## Related stories

- [Same patent, same petitioner, opposite results.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d04-same-patent-same-petitioner-opposite-results)
- [Win § 101 in court, and the IPR ends.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d07-win-101-in-court)
- [A foreign government can’t petition. Prove you aren’t one.](https://postgrantproceeding.com/insights/d08-a-foreign-government-cant-petition-prove-you-arent-one)

## Sources

- S72. GoPro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc., No. IPR2018-01754, Paper 38 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2019) (Precedential Opinion Panel) (precedential). https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/precedential-informative-decisions
- S73. Infiltrator Water Technologies, LLC v. Presby Patent Trust, No. IPR2018-00224, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2018) (precedential). https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/precedential-informative-decisions
- S74. LG Electronics, Inc. v. Mondis Technology Ltd., No. IPR2015-00937, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 17, 2015) (precedential). https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/precedential-informative-decisions
- S75. Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc., No. IPR2018-01511, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019) (precedential). https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/precedential-informative-decisions
- S76. SecureBuy, LLC v. CardinalCommerce Corp., No. CBM2014-00035, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2014) (precedential). https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/precedential-informative-decisions
- S77. Colas Solutions Inc. v. Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc., No. IPR2018-00242, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2018) (informative). https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/precedential-informative-decisions
- S25. Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v. McGinley, No. IPR2017-01216, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. September 18, 2017) (informative). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2017-01216%20Luvn%20Care%20%28Paper%2013%29.pdf
- S78. Motorola Mobility LLC v. Arnouse, No. IPR2013-00010, Paper 20 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2013) (informative). https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/precedential-informative-decisions
- S79. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. IPR2014-00360, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. June 27, 2014) (informative). https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/precedential-informative-decisions
- S26. Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC, No. IPR2021-00330, Paper 20 (P.T.A.B. January 14, 2022) (Precedential Opinion Panel; precedential). https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR2021-00330_pop_dec_20220114.pdf
- S80. Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, 590 U.S. 45 (2020), vacating Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc in part); on remand, 45 F.4th 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2022). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/19
- S90. USPTO, PTAB designates one decision as precedential and de-designates one decision (May 2020). Before that May 5, 2020 de-designation, Oracle v. Click-to-Call, No. IPR2013-00312, Paper 26 was precedential only as to § III.A. https://www.uspto.gov/subscription-center/2020/ptab-designates-one-decision-precedential-and-de-designates-one-decision
- S13. Federal patent statutes, 35 U.S.C. §§ 253(a), 303(a), 311–315, 317 and 321–325. Reproduced in MPEP Appendix L (currency date stated by the appendix: Jan. 31, 2024). https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html

## Not yet confirmed

- How the Board has treated GoPro and Infiltrator since Thryv has not been checked.

Each item is marked in the story with a dashed outline. We update the story when the official record confirms or corrects it.

Precedential decisions bind the Board within their designated scope. Informative decisions show the Office’s reasoning but do not bind the Board. Court opinions are cited for what they decided; later history was checked on the date shown above.

Updated

- October 17, 2026: Before its de-designation in May 2020, Oracle v. Click-to-Call was precedential only as to § III.A. The story now says so.

General information about published decisions, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.