Inter Partes Review

Subscribe to Inter Partes Review via RSS

Preliminary Responses Accompanied by Declaration Evidence: Updated Results 

Back on May 1st, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) began to accept new testimonial evidence with patentee preliminary responses.  The PTAB implemented this change to address complaints that patentees were disadvantaged by previous rules precluding such evidence from accompanying a preliminary response to the petition. It was argued that the previous rules were especially imbalanced as almost all petitions were accompanied by petitioner declaration evidence.  I had my doubts.

Now that we are approaching a year removed from the rule modification, some updated results.  

…
Continue Reading PTAB Preliminary Response Evidence Remains Unpopular

How Long is the Rehearing Wait?

A Petition for Rehearing may be filed in an AIA Trial Proceeding to challenge an Institution Decisions (ID) or a Final Written Decision (FWD) of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB). Of course, a successful Petition for Rehearing is a rare occurrence. Fewer than 5% of cases to date have seen a successful Petition for Rehearing.  

A Petition for Rehearing pursued after an ID is often deemed to have the longest odds of success given the 314(d) bar to appealing such decisions (now pending review in WiFi One). On the other hand, given the ultimate appeal of FWDs to the Federal Circuit, it may be that such filings inherently enjoy closer scrutiny, and hence, slightly better odds of success.

In any event, both patentees and petitioners alike sometimes find it necessary to pursue rehearing for any number of strategic goals. But, given the lack of a mandated deadline for such decisions, the question becomes: “How Long is the Wait?”

…
Continue Reading Rehearing Pendency in AIA Trial Proceedings

Practical Impact of Joinder Practice, Stricter Estoppel

IPR estoppel is established under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which provides that “the petitioner in an inter partes review of a claim in a patent . . . that results in a final written decision . . . may not assert . . . in a civil action . . . that the claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.” (emphasis added).  Once upon a time, the reasonably could have raised component was thought to refer to art that could have been raised in the initial petition — at least, that was what Congress seemed to intend. Since that time, the Federal Circuit has made clear that this statutory estoppel is linked to the grounds presented at trial, and not those included in the petition and rejected by the Board as redundant. 

In Shaw Industries Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Systems, Inc., 817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Court held that statutory estoppel does not apply to grounds denied by the Board as redundant.  The Court reasoned that estoppel cannot flow from grounds that are not part of the trial or any resulting decision from which estoppel can attach.

Rightly or wrongly, district courts have construed Shaw to extend to any potential trial ground not presented in the petition, not just those denied on redundancy grounds. This development has been a boon for original petitioners. But, a recent decision has made clear that petitioners seeking joinder may forfeit the Shaw estoppel benefits.

…
Continue Reading PTAB Joinder: Being Your Brother’s Keeper

Article III Standing for PTAB Appeals Once Again Revisited by Federal Circuit

Last month, the Federal Circuit made clear that Article III standing is necessary for petitioners to appeal from adverse decisions in AIA trial proceedings in Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc. (here)  The Phigenix decision follows an earlier decision, Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (Warf) finding the same Article III standing requirement for the now defunct inter partes patent reexamination. 

Yesterday, in PPG Industries, Inc., v. Valspar Sourcing, Inc., the Federal Circuit again addressed the issue of standing in appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). At issue in these consolidated appeals was whether PPG Industries, Inc. (“PPG”) had standing to appeal the PTAB’s decisions in two inter partes reexaminations where the patent owner Valspar Sourcing, Inc. (“Valspar”) was the prevailing party. Showcased in this appeal is evidence deemed to satisfy Article III standing for an appeal from the PTAB.
Continue Reading Article III Standing Found for PTAB Appeal Where Threat of Suit

Burden of Production on Article III Standing to Bolster 315(b) Disputes at CAFC?

Two weeks back, the Federal Circuit made clear that Article III standing is necessary for petitioners to appeal from adverse decisions in AIA trial proceedings. Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc. (here)  The Phigenix decision follows an earlier decision, Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (Warf) finding the same Article III standing requirement for the now defunct inter partes patent reexamination. Thus, Phigenix was expected given that differences in AIA trial proceedings and patent reexamination are inconsequential with respect to the standing debate (and in virtually all other respects).

While Phigenix is well on the radar of public interest groups and like organizations that seek to institute an AIA trial proceeding on patents of interest, the impact of this decision could complicate appeals for certain operating companies should the en banc decision in Wifi One play out as expected.
Continue Reading Phigenix/WiFi a Double Bind for Future PTAB Privity Disputes?

315(e)(2) Estoppel Application Less Than Straightforward

IPR estoppel is established under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which provides that “the petitioner in an inter partes review of a claim in a patent . . . that results in a final written decision . . . may not assert . . . in a civil action . . . that the claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.” (emphasis added).  After Last year, in Shaw Industries Group, Inc. v. Auomated Creel Systems, Inc., 817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016) the interpretation of “reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review” has been unnecessarily complicated.

Shaw had petitioned for a writ of mandamus instructing the PTO to institute IPR based on a ground the Board previously denied as redundant.  Id. at 1299.  To satisfy one of three requirements for such a writ, Shaw argued that it had no other adequate means to attain the desired relief because it had brought that ground before the PTO and thus may be estopped from arguing the ground in any future proceeding.  Id.  However, the Court found no reason for Shaw to fear estoppel, holding that “[t]he plain language of the statute prohibits the application of estoppel under these circumstances.”  Id. at 1300.  The Court’s logic was that an IPR does not “begin until it is instituted.”   Id.  According to the Court, under Section 315 and due to its term “during that inter partes review,” an IPR petitioner could not have raised (or have reasonably raised) any ground in a petition for which the PTAB did not institute trial.  Shaw’s proffered invalidity ground had been denied and thus never entered the IPR; therefore, Shaw would not be estopped from its new invalidity argument.  The take-away from Shaw is that Section 315(e) does not estop an IPR petitioner from challenging a patent based on petitioned but non-instituted grounds of unpatentability.

The legislative intent behind 315(e)(2) is quite the contrary.
Continue Reading PTAB Redundant Ground Practice Complicating Estoppel

Moving Forward on Indefinite Claims Could Haunt Petitioners

Often times when preparing an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, a claim is encountered that may be of an indeterminate scope under 35 U.S.C. 112. As indefiniteness issues are not considered in IPR, the question then becomes: Should the broadest of the possible competing construction for the claim term be proposed in order to get an IPR instituted on the claim? Or, should the petitioner avoid proposing a construction for an indefinite term to reserve rights for a later, district court challenge?  Of course, holding back claims for a later district court proceeding is typically disfavored given the entire point of IPR, in most cases, is to avoid the expense of district court litigation.  For that reason, most petitioners forge ahead to attack the indefinite claim.

As explained by the Federal Circuit this week in Sonix Technology Co., Ltd. V. Pubs. Int’l Ltd. et al., (here), Petitioners would be wise to note the 112 issue in their petitions.

…
Continue Reading What to Do With 112 Issues in IPR?

Bar to Appealing 315(b) Disputes Likely to be Overruled

Back in November, the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential decision in the Click-To-Call Techs. v. Oracle Corp., which openly questioned the continued viability of Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 803 F.3d 652 (Fed. Cir. 2015) post-Cuozzo.  As a reminder, Achates held that issues arising under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (i.e,, IPR one year, time bar) could not be appealed to the CAFC, pursuant to 314(d).  

Today, in Wi-Fi One LLC v. Broadcom (here), the Court granted en banc review of the IPR appeal bar.

…
Continue Reading CAFC Grants En Banc Review of IPR Appeal Bar

Fee Setting Authority to be Exercised in 2017 

The USPTO discussed its first ever fee increase under the fee setting authority of the America Invents Act (AIA) in November of 2015.  At the time, an initial proposal was provided to the Public Patent Advisory Committee (PPAC) for review.  While the hope was to have the proposed fee adjustments take effect on October 1, 2016 (start of FY 2017), significant stakeholder feedback and considerations have, understandably, slowed the rule making process.

Prior to the close of 2016, a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) issued requesting comments from the public on proposed fee increases for post-grant patent proceedings, including AIA trials.  With comments collected last month, a Final Rule Notice is imminent.  

Expected Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) fee increases include:

…
Continue Reading PTAB Trials to Increase in Cost for 2017

Expert Agency Need Not Accept Expert Testimony

AIA trial practices of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) are often analogized to that of the district courts. Yet, in practice, there are more differences than similarities between the two. The PTAB, unlike the district courts, is an expert agency. For this reason, its decisions are reviewed on the substantial evidence standard of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 5 U.S.C. § 706. Further the PTAB applies the preponderance of the evidence evidentiary standard, which stands in stark contrast to the clear and convincing standard of the district court.  Taken together, these two foundational differences are worlds apart from district court trial practices, and, serve as the primary drivers behind the appeal of the PTAB to patent challengers.

Counsel more accustomed to the favorable patentee standards of the district courts, often times find themselves struggling with the seemingly bizarro world of PTAB administrative trials— such as the agency’s ability to disregard expert testimony that would be given weight in the district courts.
Continue Reading CAFC Explains PTAB Expertise & Its Role In IPR Fact Finding