Inter Partes Review

Subscribe to Inter Partes Review via RSS

Time to Adapt - Clock

Refusal to Stay Pending CBM Unusual

Last week I discussed the creation of a “Track B” docket by the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) and explained how this docket could force some defendants away from the more cost effective alternatives of the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB). On the heels of the Track B announcement, the Court issued a second denial of a stay of the patent dispute between VirtualAgility Inc., v. Salesforce.com Inc., et al. (here) pending PTAB review. In this case, a Covered Business Method (CBM) challenge was filed against the patent at issue. By way of reminder, CBM is the proceeding created by Congress that does all but mandate a stay pending CBM…..at least outside of Texas.
Continue Reading Is The Eastern District of Texas Thwarting the America Invents Act?

EDTX Judge Davis Announces New, Faster “Track B” for Patent Cases

Last week, Chief Judge Leonard Davis of the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) issued an Order (here) creating a second, Track B for patent cases. Track B as the name implies establishes a different, accelerated track as compared to the typical EDTX schedule (Track A). Litigants may opt for Track B by agreement, or be selected for such by the court. Track B is designed to reduce costs by accelerating milestones and limiting certain filing and discovery practices. These same concepts are expressed in many of the proposals of the pending patent reform legislation. The judiciary has been rather vocal on opposing the various proposals floating around Congress on issues of district court case management. While the goal of Track B is to resolve disputes sooner with less cost to litigants, the timing also suggests a deliberate amplification of the judiciary’s position.

To be sure, the proactive efforts of the judiciary to reduce time and expense of litigation are greatly welcomed, and the EDTX effort is to be applauded for taking the lead. Yet, based upon the dynamics of what is going on in the world of patent assertion post America Invents Act (AIA), the EDTX Track B docket could aid certain non-practicing entities that were only recently left for dead.…

Continue Reading Could Track B Scheduling in EDTX Benefit Patent Trolls?

Patentees Fail to Adjust to Motion Practice

As final written decisions in Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings begin to issue from the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB), it is clear that patentees have yet to master the process of amending their patents in these new proceedings. The primary disconnect appears to be the failure of patentees to recognize that an amendment in a PTAB proceeding is proposed by motion; an amendment is not entered as a matter of right.

Unless prosecution has been closed in the examination of a patent application or patent reexamination, a patent applicant/patentee is free to present virtually any number and character of claim amendments supported by their specification. Outside of the prohibition against broadening, or amendments relating to a patentably distinct inventions, a patent applicant/patentee is not required to do much else but present their new claims for examination. On the other hand, a motion to amend before the PTAB requires the movant (i.e., patentee) to demonstrate entitlement to the requested relief. This demonstration requires more than most patentees are accustomed to providing the USPTO.

Continue Reading Amendment Missteps Before the PTAB

The Applicability of Prosecution History in a BRI Analysis

Whether in a new patent application or in an issued patent being subject to a post grant review proceeding, the USPTO utilizes a Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) standard for all patent claims. Under this one-size-fits-all standard a patent claim is construed consistent with the accompanying patent specification from the perspective of one skilled in the relevant art.

Although applied in post grant proceedings, BRI was developed as an examination expedient for patent examiners to protect the public notice function of newly minted patent claims. That is, since no property rights exist at the time of patent application, a pure BRI analysis properly ignores the developing intrinsic record as a guide to claim meaning (i.e., prosecution history) in favor of claim amendment practices. However, once an issued patent returns to the USPTO for a post grant analysis, consideration of prosecution history as intrinsic evidence is more of a mixed bag—especially when before examiners steeped in traditional BRI practices (e.g., reexamination, reissue, supplemental examination).

Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has sent the USPTO Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) seemingly conflicting messages on the use of prosecution history during post grant proceedings.…

Continue Reading Prosecution History Before the PTAB….Your Mileage May Vary

Evidence of Petitioner Control Critical for PTAB Privity Finding

Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) a petitioner, real party-in-interest, or privy of the petitioner must seek Inter Partes Review (IPR) within 12 months of service of a complaint for patent infringement. In an attempt to dodge some IPR filings as time barred, patentees are urging the USPTO Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) to adopt an expansive interpretation of privy. That is, since parties are often time embroiled in patent suits at different times, expanding the 12 month window to encompass the first filed suit could insulate many patentees from dreaded IPR challenges.

As detailed previously, in Atlanta Gas Light Company v. Bennett Regulator Guards Inc., (IPR2013-00453, Paper 31, January 22, 2014), the PTAB agreed that the existence of an indemnification agreement was probative of the opportunity for control by a supplier of a customer petitioner. However, the PTAB is seeking more than the mere existence of an agreement, but instead, hard evidence of control.…

Continue Reading Lack of PTAB Discovery to Shift Privity Question to District Courts

PTAB Rejects Early Motions to Exclude as Improper

The Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) has begun issuing a steady stream of final written decisions in Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings. In these initial decisions, the Board is denying a significant number of improperly filed motions to exclude from both petitioners and patentees alike. Specifically, the Board is urging that a proper motion to exclude is not filed to: (1) challenge the sufficiency of the opposing parties evidence; (2) serve as a sur-reply; or (3) attack evidence raised in petitioner filings as being “new.” Instead, a proper motion to exclude must be keyed to an earlier made evidentiary objection.

While the PTAB is diligently educating the public on the proper motion practice in the initial wave of decisions, failure to heed the guidance in these initial decisions may result in attorney sanctions down the line.…

Continue Reading PTAB Explains Proper Role of Motions to Exclude

Indemnification Obligation May Trigger IPR Clock

Indemnification from a claim of patent infringement is a common warranty in contractual agreements for the exchange of technological goods. In the event of an infringement claim against the contracted goods/services, a demand for indemnity triggers a duty of the supplier to defend against the claim in some manner, typically funding the defense, or taking over responsibility for the defense effort. As I discussed previously, indemnification clauses require special attention after the America Invents Act (AIA).

Recently, in Atlanta Gas Light Company v. Bennett Regulator Guards Inc., (IPR2013-00453, Paper 31, January 22, 2014) the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) analyzed the interplay of an indemnification obligation as it relates to 35 U.S.C. § 312(a) and the 12 month window of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). That is, does the existence of a contract/indemnification clause create privity between the contracting party under the IPR statutes, or render an indemnitor a real-party-in-interest with respect to the indemnified party?
Continue Reading Beware: Indemnification May Create Privity Under IPR Statutes

Post Grant CLE Tomorrow at USPTO

Just a reminder that the 9th Annual Advanced Patent Law Institute is underway at the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO. This two day program offers several post grant patent discussions tomorrow, including:  AIA Practice Tips Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; Post-Grant Proceedings, Strategies and Practice…

Statistics Demonstrate Staggering Demand for PTAB Patent Challenge Proceedings

Last week, the USPTO issued the official tallies/progress statistics for Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR) and the Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings. As of January 9, 2014 the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) has received 810 IPR petitions and 108 CBM petitions…

CAFC

USPTO Appeals to Grow for CAFC

In 2013 the patent-challenging public took notice of the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) in a big way. With as many as 100 post-grant patent challenges being pursued per month at the PTAB, the unique considerations required to successfully navigate these proceedings from the PTAB on through…