New Informative Decisions Applying Fintiv Factors

Today, the Patent Trial & Appeal Bord designated two decisions informative that apply the so-called “Fintiv factors.”

Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (May 13, 2020) (informative)

This decision denies institution upon applying the factors set forth in the precedential Order of the same dispute,  Apple

PTAB Cements Institutional Discretion

Back in January, I identified the Board’s expanding view of 314(a) discretion as the most significant development of 2018. In that earlier post, I predicted that one such 314(a)/325(d) case, NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., would be designated precedential in 2019.

Yesterday, the PTAB delivered on my prediction.
Continue Reading New PTAB Precedent: 314(a) Not Just for Follow-On Petitions

Previously Exercised Discretion Eliminated by SAS

While most remember the Cuozzo appeal as challenging the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s (PTAB) claim construction practices, it also challenged the Board’s discretion to institute claims on grounds not presented in the IPR petition. But, the High Court deemed this issue unreachable given the appeal bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Still, the Federal Circuit has expressly endorsed the Board’s ability to modify the grounds presented in trial petitions.

Today, the Federal Circuit has made clear in Sirona Dental SystemsGMBH v. Institut Straumann AG (precedential) that the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute eliminates any ability of the Board to modify a petitioner’s trial grounds.
Continue Reading CAFC: PTAB Must Not Reformulate Petition Grounds