Procedures

Subscribe to Procedures
download

Latent OTDP Issues & Litigation

The Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Cellect clarified that patenting obvious variants of the same invention across multiple patents—Obvious-Type Double Patenting (OTDP)—can result in the elimination/reduction of Patent Term Adjustment (PTA). OTDP was fatal to the challenged Cellect patents given the expiration of the reference patent. This was because a terminal disclaimer to remedy OTDP is not possible after expiration. Earlier this year I explained ways to proactively insulate a patent portfolio from potential Cellect vulnerabilities.

For patent owners facing newly invigorated OTDP attacks in litigation, and where a terminal disclaimer can still be filed, the potential loss of significant PTA creates a strategic quandary.

A terminal disclaimer cannot be withdrawn once filed. So, if a patent owner simply files a terminal disclaimer to moot the OTDP challenge, years of additional patent term (PTA) may be unnecessarily surrendered where the patent owner might have won. But, if the patent owner loses on OTDP without a terminal disclaimer on file, the patent is invalidated.

Recently a patent owner attempted to resolve this quandary with a contingent terminal disclaimer.Continue Reading Contingent Terminal Disclaimers?

images_post-grant-rules1-1

Claim-Based Analysis Required for Pre-AIA Patents Only

One of the more confusing developments in patent law was pronounced in Dynamic Drinkware v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In Dynamic the Court held that a provisional application’s effectiveness as prior art under 102(e) depends on its written description support for the claims of the issued patent. In other words, if the patent claims ABC, and C is not supported in the provisional, the provisional loses 102(e) prior art status for all of its disclosure. So, if looking to use the provisional date for AB alone, which is supported, the claim-based analysis would still prevent such reliance.

The applicability of the strange claim-driven analysis of Dynamic was recently considered relative to AIA patents. Today’s precedential PTAB decision makes clear that the AIA statutory framework dispensed with this faulty claim-centric scheme.Continue Reading Dynamic Drinkware Analysis Unnecessary for AIA Patents

PTAB

In-Person Hearings Should Not Require the Consent of an Adversary

Last week, the PTAB published an updated Oral Hearing Guide (here) to reflect current agency practices. The changes include rather mundane clarifications on such topics as public access and demonstrative submission for ex parte hearings.

More interestingly, however, the agency highlights an all-virtual hearing “option” for America Invents Act (AIA) trials. But, in practice this option is more appropriately considered the new default.Continue Reading PTAB Default Should Be In-Person Trial Hearings

changesigns

Amended Rule Moves Focus to Admissibility

Back in April the Supreme Court approved changes to FRE 702 (Expert Witness Testimony) that will take effect on December 1st. These changes clarify that the preponderance of evidence standard controls the evaluation of expert testimony while also providing structural changes designed to refocus the trial court on admissibility.

Enhancing the gatekeeping function of the courts moves current practice away from erring on the side of admissibility. This also avoids fact finders needing to assign an appropriate weight where reliability is in question; such practices are especially confusing for juries.

But, what does the change to FRE 702 mean for declarant testimony at the PTAB? Continue Reading FRE 702 Amendment & The PTAB

APA Safeguards Rebuttal Opportunity to New Claim Construction

A fundamental safeguard of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is the opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. Over the years the Federal Circuit has reminded the PTAB that parties must have notice of the agency’s positions and a meaningful opportunity to rebut such positions. The same opportunity must be provided for positions of opposing parties — as long as such positions are deemed timely.

Since the SCOTUS decision in SAS institute, which explained that the petition serves to “guide the life of the litigation,” the Board has considered positions expressed in a petition to be fixed. That is, if a patent owner raises a new claim construction mid-trial, the petitioner may not stray from its original positions (typically addressing a different construction) to rebut the new position of the patent owner. As can be appreciated there is a clear tension between the due process guarantees of the APA and a rigid application of the SCOTUS explanation in SAS.

Yesterday, the CAFC issued a precedential decision to clarify that there is at least some wiggle room for petitioners.Continue Reading CAFC Clarifies PTAB Trial Scope – Coming Practice Changes

images_content_2014_PTAB_at_4-1-275x206

No Role For POP Post-Arthrex

As of Monday July 24th, the USPTO has discontinued the use of its Precedential-Opinion-Panel (POP) in favor of the interim Director Review (DR). This move was not unexpected as the POP panel (an early attempt to cure the Arthrex infirmity with partial Director oversight) was effectively replaced by the SCOTUS decision in Arthrex (Director Only).

In relying only on the DR moving forward, the PTAB has also decided to expand it to AIA institution decisions.Continue Reading PTAB Drops POP Panel Review Option

images_content_PTAB-1

Boardside Chat Thursday 7/20

The PTAB’s next Boardside Chat webinar will be held this Thursday, July 20, from noon to 1 p.m. ET. The panel of APJs will discuss issues that typically arise during an America Invents Act (AIA) trial proceeding before the PTAB. The scheduled topics include filing of multiple petitions, discretionary denial, new…

PTAB-legislation

Estoppel Reasonably Could Have Raised During Trial?

The challenge to the IPR estoppel statute in Apple et al., v. California Institute of Technology focused on the statute’s use of “during.” That is, whether “reasonably could have raised” is assessed at the time the petition is drafted, or, during the actual proceeding as stated in the statute.

While the Court passed on the question today, its reasoning could be in conflict with contrary Federal Circuit precedent.Continue Reading SCOTUS Passes on Scope of IPR Estoppel – Joinder Scope Remains Uncertain