Patent Trial & Appeal Board

Subscribe to Patent Trial & Appeal Board via RSS

Does the 12 month Window of 35 U.S.C. 315(b) Ever Reset?

Petitioners seeking Inter Partes Review (IPR) must be mindful of the statutory bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). This provision precludes IPR on any patent once 12 months have elapsed after service of a complaint alleging infringement of that patent. The rationale for the statutory bar of 315(b) is straightforward. That is, IPR was designed to be a true alternative to patent litigation, not an adjunct process that was typical of the inter partes patent reexamination proceeding it replaced. By mandating that an IPR filing be brought earlier in the litigation timeline, Congress hoped to avoid duplicative proceedings, avoid patentee harassment, and enhance the ability of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) to provide a timely resolution to such business disputes.

315(b) went into effect on September 16, 2012. As written, the statute was understood to be retroactive, and immediately foreclosed IPR as an option for many late stage litigants. For this reason, there was an unprecedented surge of inter partes patent reexamination filings in the weeks leading up to September 16, 2012. Still, there were some open questions as to the flexibility of the 12 month window. How would repeated assertions of the same patent be treated by the PTAB, did the window reset? What about patents that had been reexamined and included new claims?
Continue Reading Does the 12 Month IPR Window Ever Reset?

Simplification of PTAB Trial Grounds May Not Help CAFC

Under the old inter partes patent reexamination model, patentees were often faced with 10+ grounds of rejection. The numerosity and overlap in these rejections rendered USPTO processing quite tedious and resource intensive. For at least this reason  these proceedings would take upward of five years to make their way through the USPTO.

With the inefficiencies of inter partes patent reexamination still fresh on the minds of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB), it is not surprising that the Board has attempted to simplify such issues for Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Covered Business Method (CBM) patent challenges (and presumably PGR). In the PTAB Trial Orders to date, grounds of unpatentability that are deemed “redundant” are filtered out at the close of the preliminary proceeding and trial is ordered going forward on the strongest grounds (as determined by the panel of PTAB judges). However, in view of the recent CAFC decision in Rexnord Industries LLC. v. Kappos (CAFC 2013), this redundancy determination may only serve as  a temporary reprieve for patentees.…

Continue Reading PTAB Redundant Grounds of Unpatentability To Come Back From the Dead?

Early Determination Calibrates Plaintiff Expectations

Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) begin with a Trial Order that includes substantial guidance on matters of claim construction. Typically, key terms at issue in the proceeding are expressly construed by the panel of administrative patent judges (APJs). While such constructions are not binding per se on a parallel litigation proceeding, in some circumstances such findings can be nevertheless devastating to a litigation campaign, and, disruptive at a far earlier date than a typical Markman Order.

For example, in many cases involving non-practicing entities (NPE), an overly broad claim construction is advanced for the purpose of capturing the products/processes of an entire industry. At the PTAB, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Naturally, if the PTAB does not agree with the NPEs claim interpretation some 5-6 months after petition filing, such is strong evidence that the plaintiff’s case will not go according to plan. In fact, the CAFC has found interpretations of the USPTO in this context to be persuasive evidence. See St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Canon Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2011, non-precedential)

In other contexts, where the claim interpretation analysis is more akin to a district court analysis, such as in an expired patent or means-plus-function claim, the PTAB Trial Order can arguably supplant a Markman analysis.
Continue Reading Early PTAB Claim Construction — The Faster, Cheaper Markman Order

CBM Statute Inadvertently Excludes Best Source of CBM Prior Art

In fashioning the Covered Business Method (CBM) statutes of the America Invents Act (AIA), Congress was sensitive to the resources of the USPTO. That is, Congress realized that certain types of “secret prior art” would be very discovery intensive to analyze within the mandated 12 month time frame that the USPTO must conclude a CBM proceeding. An example of such art would be secret public use of a claimed method that predated a patent filing, such as described in Metallizing Engineering Co. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co. 153 F. 2d 516 (CA2 1946). To avoid this type of discovery intensive prior art being applied in CBM proceeding, Congress excluded it under the definition of prior art provided in Section 18(C) of the AIA.

The problem with Section 18 (C) is that its definition of prior art inadvertently excluded 102(e).…

Continue Reading The Statutory Defect That May Doom Your CBM Petition

Midwest IP Institute This Week

For those looking for post grant related CLE this week, the Midwest IP Institute will be held in Minnesota September 26-27. The live event will include several post grant panel discussions including an update on legislative efforts, and an overview of post grant practice and strategies under the AIA.

The…

Expectations of Significant PTAB Discovery Practices Prove Misguided

When discussing Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings at CLE events, I am always fascinated by the degree of interest in PTAB discovery procedures. Parties to an Inter Parties Review (IPR) proceeding may obtain what is termed “limited discovery” at the PTAB. Such discovery is limited as it must fall in an accepted class of discovery, namely, “routine discovery” or “additional discovery.” See Rule § 42.51. Routine discovery is easy to understand, it is simply (1) any exhibit not otherwise publicly available or served, (2) cross examination of a declarant, and (3) non-cumulative information that is inconsistent with a position taken by the party before the PTAB. In the typical case, category (2) is the only routine discovery.

“Additional discovery” defines everything outside of the above noted categories. It is the promise of “additional discovery” that seems to enthrall the masses. To seek such additional discovery in an IPR an “interest of justice” showing is required. Since patent challengers in IPR rely on patent and printed publications filed with their IPR petition, there is rarely, if ever, a need for additional discovery that will satisfy the requisite showing. 

Nevertheless, I am routinely asked about “discovery plans” in IPR. In most cases the plan is simple — don’t plan on getting any.…

Continue Reading Discovery in IPR Proceedings, Much Ado About Nothing

Avoid These Litigation Inspired Drafting Errors

One of the biggest misconceptions about the new patentability challenges of the America Invents Act (AIA) is the notion that these administrative  trial proceedings are somehow analogous to district court litigation — nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, the new AIA proceedings simply skip over the previous patent reexamination examiner phase and go straight to the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) phase, with a very limited opportunity for expert depositions along the way.

While it is certainly true that Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR) and the Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings are “trials,” these PTAB trials are governed by their own unique procedures, and are almost exclusively conducted on paper. As is made clear from the 12 months of proceedings to date, discovery practice is quite limited for these trials since they are based on documentary evidence only (i.e., patents and printed publications).

Looking at the top 5 IPR petition drafting mistakes, it is not surprising that most stem from the failure to recognize the key differences between PTAB and district court proceedings.

…
Continue Reading Top 5 Mistakes in IPR Petition Drafting

The First Year of PTAB Patentability Challenges

Today marks the one year anniversary of the new patent challenge mechanisms of the America Invents Act (AIA). Over the past few months there have been many noteworthy rulings in the 550+ Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings and 50+ Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings. This week, I will look at the rulings that helped shape post grant practice before the PTAB over the first year. Today we start at the beginning with formal petition practice. Later this week, I will look at other phases of the proceeding, up to the time of oral argument such as effective petition practices, motion practice, joinder practice, and requests for additional discovery. While these rules and best practices are certain to evolve further, the PTAB’s decisions over the past year provide invaluable guidance far beyond that provided in the statute, legislative history, rules and notices.

The first step in any IPR, CBM or PGR proceeding is the preparation and filing of the petition. …
Continue Reading Top 5 Reasons for Non-Compliant IPR Petitions