Issue Joinder

Subscribe to Issue Joinder via RSS
CAFC Holds PTAB Joinder Decisions Reviewable

Back in March, the Windy City panel (Prost, Plager, and O’Malley) originally held that § 315(c) was unambiguous that an existing “party” to a PTAB proceeding cannot be joined as a party.  Thereafter, the SCOTUS considered the scope of the PTAB appeal bar in its Thryv decision, holding that potential violations of § 315(b) were too closely related to the institution determination of the agency to escape § 314(d)’s appeal bar.

Last week, in view of Thryv, the Federal Circuit modified its opinion in Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC to make clear that joinder issues were outside of the appeal bar.
Continue Reading CAFC Finds PTAB Joinder Appealable After All

Court Finds Issue Joinder Inconsistent with AIA Statute

As I predicted back in August, the Federal Circuit has now effectively reversed the PTAB’s first Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) decision in Proppant Express Investments v. Oren Technologies, Case IPR2018-00914 (PTAB Mar. 13, 2019) (Paper 38)  In this decision, the POP held that 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) provides discretion to allow a petitioner to be “joined” to a proceeding in which it is already a party, and provides discretion to allow joinder of new issues into an existing proceeding (here).

In  Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, the Federal Circuit held that 315(c) was not ambiguous—an existing “party” to a proceeding cannot be joined as a party— and, as such there was no reason to even consider the earlier POP precedent for according any Chevron or Skidmore deference.  However, the Court then went on to explain that even if there were ambiguity, the POP decision would not be accorded deference in accordance with administrative law principles.
Continue Reading CAFC Reverses PTAB POP Precedent

Agency Discretion May Permit Joinder of New Party Claims

Issue joinder practice at the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) has had a storied history to date.  As a reminder, the debate at the agency (spawning the now infamous “panel stacking” decisions) has been the proper scope of “joinder” under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).  That is, “can an existing petitioner (party) properly “join” its own proceeding to add a new issue to that proceeding, or is this statute limited to more traditional notions of party joinder?”

From the agency’s perspective, this issue was finally settled by the Precedentiial Opinion Panel (POP) decision in Proppant Express Investments v. Oren Technologies, Case IPR2018-00914 (PTAB Mar. 13, 2019) (Paper 38)  In this decision, the POP held that 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) provides discretion to allow a petitioner to be “joined” to a proceeding in which it is already a party, and provides discretion to allow joinder of new issues into an existing proceeding (here).

Since Proppant, the Federal Circuit  has had an opportunity to consider PTAB issue joinder practices  in Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC. , and judging by the oral argument, is not in favor of endorsing this practice.  But, the USPTO has indicated in a brief (amicus brief) submitted post Facebook oral argument, that regardless of the outcome in Facebook that issue joinder practice may live on. 
Continue Reading PTAB Issue Joinder Could Live On Despite CAFC Outcome

Issue Joinder Debate Comes Full Circle

As previously discussed, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s (PTAB) new Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) has considered its first case in Proppant Express Investments v. Oren Technologies, Case IPR2018-00914 (PTAB Mar. 13, 2019) (Paper 38)

The POP reversed the earlier (divided) panel decision in Proppant Express (which conflicted with the earlier consensus of Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity), holding that 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) permits issue joinder. More specifically, the POP held that 315(c) provides discretion to allow a petitioner to be joined to a proceeding in which it is already a party and provides discretion to allow joinder of new issues into an existing proceeding (here).

That is, we are right back where we started in Target.
Continue Reading New PTAB Precedent: Issue Joinder is Discretionary

Issue Joinder Practices Poised to Reset

As previously discussed, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) is now reconsidering its issue joinder practices. These practices were the subject of significant debate internal to the Board a few years back. The inability of the Board to arrive at a majority consensus on whether issue joinder was permitted by the AIA statutes led to the now infamous “panel stacking” decisions. These expanded panel decisions provided a brute force solution to the conflicting positions on the question of issue joinder, a de facto precedent of sorts.

With the new Precedential Opinion Panel, or “POP,” allowing for a more streamlined process for making precedent, the Board seems poised to drive official PTAB precedent on this question — but in a new direction.
Continue Reading New PTAB Precedent Panel Conducts First Hearing

Director’s Precedent Setting Power Likely to Unravel Issue Joinder?

Four years ago, a divided panel of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) denied issue joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) as a matter of law (i.e., the joining of two petitions of a same petitioning party) in Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp., (IPR2014-00508). The decision was remarkable at the time, given that 315(c) had been previously interpreted under multiple PTAB decisions as permitting such joinder practices. In fact, one such decision, Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., IPR2012-00026, Paper 17, Dec. 21, 2012, had even been published as a representative order on the PTO web site.

Target filed a request for rehearing challenging the decision.  In its Decision on Rehearing the PTAB expanded the panel reversed its original decision, granting Target’s petition for joinder and finding 315(c) to permit issue joinder. This decision became notorious thereafter as an example of the Board’s “panel stacking” to reach a desired outcome.  (At the time I explained this was more a function of the difficulty in designating decisions precedential rather than any nefarious design against Patent Owners, that is, the PTAB needed to pick a direction by brute force where conflicting decisions prevented a consensus vote of the Board)

More recently the USPTO has welcomed a new pro-patent Director that has made clear he believes the PTAB could use some pro-patent recalibration.  Recently, the agency has given the new Director the ability to make precedent virtually on his own. Based on a decision last week, it may be that the Director could unravel the Board’s chosen path on issue joinder to the delight of patent owners.
Continue Reading Director Iancu to Unravel Panel Stacking Decision?

Expanded Panel Decision Voted Precedential

On the heels of the recent issuance of an expanded panel decision in General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Case IPR2016-01357 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (Paper 19), Section II.B.4.i.(here), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has now designated this decision precedential. 
Continue Reading PTAB’s New Precedential Guidance on Follow-on AIA Petitions

PTAB Expanded Panels Impact Less Than 1% of All AIA Trials

Last week the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued its decision in Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. (here)  The decision affirmed the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board cancellation of certain claims of Nidec’s U.S. patent 7,626,349 (IPR2014-01121 & IPR2015-00762). In this regard, the opinion was rather unremarkable. Of particular interest to PTAB critics, however, was the Court’s discussion of the Board’s expanded panel practices in its concurring opinion.

Although conceding it had no impact on the outcome of the case, the concurrence took issue with the Board’s expansion of a rehearing panel for the stated purpose of reversing the earlier decision.  That is, in order to consistently treat questions of issue joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), the PTAB expanded a panel to include judges that had ruled differently on the same question of statutory interpretation. As a result, the expanded panel reversed the earlier decision and found issue joinder to be embraced by 315(c). The Federal Circuit signaled a strong distaste of such agency practices.

Critics were quick to lambaste the PTAB’s expanded panel process in Nidec as evidence of a crooked process and an anti-patent bias.  Of course, anyone that has followed this blog knows that to be false.
Continue Reading PTAB Expanded Panels: Fact Check