Patent Trial & Appeal Board

Subscribe to Patent Trial & Appeal Board via RSS
Cert Petitions Pursue Takings Clause Argument

Last week, Arthrex filed a petition for certiorari challenging the holding of the Federal Circuit that its Appointments Clause challenge was forfeited. (a companion case to the one that has received all of the notoriety).  In its first petition for certiorari, Arthrex also pursues a different constitutional issue based on the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, like other recent filers.

I expect this argument to soon be added to the list of failed constitutional challenges to the PTAB.Continue Reading Takings Clause Challenge to PTAB Trials?

New Precedent/Informative Decisions Demonstrate Nexus Considerations

Yesterday, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) designated one new precedential case, and two informative decisions directed to the application of objective indicia to obviousness determinations.  Collectively, the decisions outline the necessary degree of nexus between subject claims and submitted objective indicia.
Continue Reading PTAB Highlights Successful Application of Objective Indicia

CAFC Decision Moots Some POP Consideration in Hunting Titan Dispute

Last November, the PTAB ordered Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) review of the final written decision in  Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics GmbH & Co. KG, Inc., IPR2018-00600. The rehearing request in Hunting Titan sought review of the Board’s denial of a Motion to Amend based upon an alleged sua sponte modification of a petitioner’s anticipation ground by the panel (here).  That is, the POP is reviewing the Board’s role in the amendment process where a petitioner either decides not to challenge an amended claim, or does so in a deficient manner that is apparent to the expert agency.

But the Federal Circuit has now weighed in on most aspects of this debate.
Continue Reading CAFC Finds “Little Sense” in Limiting the PTAB on Amended Claims

PLI Program to Focus on the State of the PTAB

This coming Monday, April 13th, the Practising Law Institute (PLI) will host a one-hour briefing at 3PM(EST) entitled: COVID-19 and PTAB Recalibration — Virtual Trials and Evolving Agency Workflows. (Register here).  I am pleased to once again team with Rob Sterne of…

New Printed Publication Precedent/Informative Decisions

Yesterday, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) designated one new precedential case, and four informative decisions directed to printed publication analyses.

The four informative decisions stem from AIA trial proceedings, and address common fact patterns in assessing public accessibility of a printed publication.  Perhaps of most interest is the precedential decision, which outlines important distinctions between examinational and adjudicatory procedures before the agency.
Continue Reading PTAB Precedent Distinguishes Prima Facie Case from AIA Trial Practices

NHK Swallows General Plastic

The America Invents Act (AIA) was passed into law in 2011 to provide a more cost-effective, faster alternative to district court patent litigation.  At the time, bill sponsors explained that some of America’s largest innovators were paying more to their patent lawyers in a given year — to defend against “patent troll” suits— than they were on new research and development.  The role of the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) in this perceived problem was not lost on legislators.  Provisions were added to the AIA to address perceived joinder abuses in the EDTX.  And, in many respects, EDTX plaintiff behaviors abruptly transformed the AIA from an esoteric, multi-year legislative debate, into law.

Of course, EDTX remains one of the most popular patent venues in the U.S. despite the AIA, and additional efforts to rein in this venue option in TC Heartland.  More recently, EDTX has inspired a copycat venue in the Western District of Texas (WDTX), which has seen a 700% increase in patent cases since 2016. The expansion in popularity of Texas district courts, especially for non-practicing entities (NPEs), makes the PTAB’s recent deference to such litigation under its NHK precedent all the more troubling given its AIA mandate.
Continue Reading Texas Plaintiffs More Likely to Side-Step PTAB?

Invalidity Counterclaims-In-Reply Will Not Trigger 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)

Congress created IPR to provide a “quick and cost effective alternative[ ] to litigation.”  To fulfill that role, Congress limited a party’s ability to seek an IPR after commencement of civil litigation in two ways: (1) under § 315(a), no IPR may be instituted if the challenger filed a civil action challenging the validity of a patent claim before filing the IPR petition, and (2) under § 315(b), an IPR may not be instituted on any petition filed more than one year after the petitioner (or a real party in interest or privy) was served with a patent infringement complaint.  These provisions are designed to control PTAB filings concurrent with civil complaints.

In a recent decision, the Northern District of California lamented that the statutory provisions permit a counterclaim of invalidity in a Reply. 315(a)(3). The Court interpreted such a counterclaim to be a “loophole.”
Continue Reading Declaratory Judgement Loophole at PTAB?

Most Patent/Trademark Prosecution Dates Extendible – Some PTAB

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced extensions to the time allowed to file certain patent and trademark-related documents and to pay certain required fees. These actions are an exercise of temporary authority provided to the USPTO by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) signed by President Trump on March 27.  Today’s announcement is in addition to earlier announced accommodations.
Continue Reading USPTO Offers 30 Day Extensions Under CARES Act

PTAB May Not Create a New Ground of its Own, But Can Rely on Additional Art in Support of a Petition Ground

Recently, the Federal Circuit in Philips v. Google (here) explained that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) may only institute trial on grounds presented in a trial petition. 948 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2020).  That is, the Board may not formulate its own grounds from the petition art.  This is because the Supreme Court has explained the AIA statutes do not “contemplate a petition that asks the Director to initiate whatever kind of inter partes review he might choose.” SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018).

But, as explained this week in Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Iancu (here), this prohibition against agency formulated grounds does not prevent the Board from looking to additional references for evidentiary support (such as general knowledge in the art) to support an existing trial ground.
Continue Reading New PTAB Ground or Just Supporting Evidence?