Patent Litigation

Subscribe to Patent Litigation via RSS
Are Continuation Patents Still Viable After a Parent is Cancelled?

Patent families are formed of multiple continuation/divisional filings stemming from the same disclosure. Typically, continuation patents present marginally different claim sets.  An age old prosecution strategy is to keep a continuation pending to adapt claim sets in an iterative fashion to competitor designs. But what is the impact of the PTAB cancellation of a parent patent’s claims on such pending continuations?
Continue Reading Patent Family Viability After a PTAB Loss?

Unified Patents Insights Webinar This Thursday

This Thursday April 1st, Unified Patent’s Insight Webinar series (free) will present its April offering at 12PM(EST):

The PTAB and the Western Way: How Judge Albright’s Court and the Board Interact
In the webinar, the panel will  explore the impact of the Western District of Texas on the patent…

Amicus Briefing May Help Get SCOTUS Attention on Growing 101 Morass

In one of the more closely-watched cases involving patent eligibility, American Axle v. Neapco, Judge Moore recently highlighted how “bitterly divided” the Federal Circuit is on patent eligibility, and predicted with a “reasonable probability” that the Supreme Court will step in and force the Federal Circuit to reverse course on issues of eligibility.

American Axle—involving driveline propeller shafts for automotive engines—highlights the sharp divide in how various Federal Circuit panels apply the Supreme Court’s eligibility guidelines and the resulting uncertainty that inventors, patent owners, and accused infringers face in determining whether inventions are eligible under § 101 as interpreted by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Alice v. CLS Bank.  Indeed, in an earlier decision denying rehearing en banc, a sharply divided Court issued two concurrences justifying the panel’s application of § 101 law and three separate dissents urging the full court to take up the issue.  Understanding the differences in opinion here may help patent practitioners navigate tumultuous § 101 issues until the Supreme Court weighs in again.  American Axle petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari on December 20, 2020.  The petition calls for clarity on § 101 and may be taken up in conference shortly.

The Court has shown some interest in the case, soliciting views of the government. Amicus support has also followed, including a brief filed by Senators Tillis and Coons, and former PTO Director David Kappos. Consideration of American Axle is the quickest path to some form of clarity for patent subject matter eligibility disputes.Continue Reading American Axle Offers A Glimmer of Hope on Potential 101 Reform

New PTAB Roadblocks & Strategies

Earlier this week I laid out my Top 5 PTAB cases of 2020 for PTAB Practitioners, focusing on those cases that changed day-to-day practices before the agency. Like the practitioner list, my Top 5 PTAB developments of 2020 for District Court Litigators will focus on those practical PTAB developments that will impact parallel litigation practices outside of the agency.

In 2020, there were a number developments of interest to litigators, from litigation forums where a PTAB challenge is foreclosed or highly unlikely, to stipulations for avoiding PTAB discretionary denials, and new risks of collateral estoppel across a litigated portfolio.
Continue Reading Top 5 PTAB Developments of 2020 for District Court Litigators

POP to Decide Further Extension of 314(a)?

A year or so back, I discussed a 314(a) dispute at the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) where the Board considered a co-pending ITC investigation. In that decision, the Board instituted trial, pointing out that “the ITC does not have the authority to invalidate a patent and ITC decisions do not necessarily pertain to the issues raised in an inter partes review petition.”  More recently the applicability of ITC investigations to a Fintiv factor 314(a) analysis was raised in Garmin International, Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., (IPR2020-00754).

In Garmin, the Board found that a co-pending ITC investigation favored a denial of institution. The case is noteworthy as in assessing the Fintiv factors, the Board effectively made clear that any petition concurrent with an ITC filing should be denied.

Now the dispute is up for consideration by the Precedential Opinion Panel (POP).
Continue Reading 314(a) To Block All ITC Disputes from PTAB?

Delaware Cases Slipping 4-6 Months

The practice of denying AIA trial petitions in view of competing district court trial dates has brought some negative attention to the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) over the past few months. At the same time, patent litigation has increased over the first two quarters of the year by 20%.  This surge has been greatly aided by the exploding popularity of the Western District of Texas (WDTX) with non-practicing entities — a district that the PTAB is increasingly deferring to in its discretionary denials based upon competing trial dates.

While Patent Owners are quick to point to a looming district court trial date as being set in stone, in reality, these dates are often reset once the PTAB hurdle is cleared.
Continue Reading District Court Trial Dates Tend to Slip After PTAB Discretionary Denials

House and Senate Judiciary Committees Alerted to “Significant and Rapidly Growing Problem”

Earlier this month, a coalition of stakeholder organizations sent letters to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees seeking an investigation into the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s (PTAB) application of discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).  More particularly, the organizations argue that the Board’s application of NHK Spring is “choking off access” to the PTAB and leading to a resurgence in patent litigation of questionable merit. The organizations ask that the USPTO report to Congress on these practices, and engage in formal rulemaking to guide agency practices.

Whether the requested action is provided or not, the continued application of 314(a) in the NHK context seems destined to end.
Continue Reading Congress Urged to Investigate PTAB Discretionary Denials

Deciding Between PTAB & District Court Venues for 112 Challenges

With an increasing number of issued patents eligible for Post Grant Review (PGR), patent challengers find themselves assessing whether PGR is worth the added estoppel risk.  That is, where a first-inventor-to-file patent is still within 9-months of issuance (PGR window), should a challenger opt for PGR, or await the availability of IPR after the 9th month?

As with many legal questions, the answer is —”it depends.”
Continue Reading PGR May Be The Place For Your 112 Case

Apple Factors Added to NHK Mix

A few weeks back I highlighted the fact that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) was in the process of considering a more nuanced approach to NHK determinations.  That is, with a few Board decisions seemingly denying IPR trial institutions on the sole basis of a competing, and earlier district court trial date, the Board was considering whether its approach had become too rigid.

Today, the Board designated as precedential the supplemental briefing order in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (March 20, 2020), which lists six factors to be assessed in such scenarios.
Continue Reading PTAB Adds Factors to Assess Import of Competing Trial Date

Denial of Institution Sinks Materiality Allegation

Inequitable conduct is an equitable defense to patent infringement that, if proved, bars enforcement of a patent. The standard for inequitable conduct was recalibrated in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2011).  To prevail on the defense of inequitable conduct, an alleged infringer must demonstrate two elements—materiality and intent.  That is, demonstrate that the patent applicant misrepresented or omitted material information with the specific intent to deceive the PTO.  Materiality of information changed from the previous “reasonable examiner” standard to “but-for” materiality in Therasense.

Of course, the best way to prove such materiality is to demonstrate that the PTO is in the process of reconsidering its earlier decision based on this same prior art.
Continue Reading Therasense “But For” Materiality Mooted by IPR Loss