There are quite a few Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) related CLE events over the next few weeks.
First, today, the PatentsPostGrant March Webinar will cover Patent Derivation, Trade Secret Misappropriation & Inventorship Disputes @2PM (EST). This program will cover the full breadth of considerations
In Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Research Corp. Technologies, Inc., (here) the Federal Circuit held that parties joined to an IPR petition have a statutory right of appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 319 as “parties”, even if the original petitioner lacks Article III standing for appeal.
Continue Reading Joined PTAB Parties & CAFC Appeal Rights
As previously discussed, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) is now reconsidering its issue joinder practices. These practices were the subject of significant debate internal to the Board a few years back. The inability of the Board to arrive at a majority consensus on whether issue joinder was permitted by the AIA statutes led to the now infamous “panel stacking” decisions. These expanded panel decisions provided a brute force solution to the conflicting positions on the question of issue joinder, a de facto precedent of sorts.
With the new Precedential Opinion Panel, or “POP,” allowing for a more streamlined process for making precedent, the Board seems poised to drive official PTAB precedent on this question — but in a new direction.
Continue Reading New PTAB Precedent Panel Conducts First Hearing
Litigants beware; Judge Rodney Gilstrap (E.D. Texas) warned litigants considered to be using the district court proceedings to posture positions in co-pending CBM proceedings that ‘[t]he Court does not countenance—in fact this Court is offended by—the strategic use of an Article III Court to gain a tactical advantage in any parallel proceeding.”
But, this dispute may be a preview of things to come as the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) aligns itself with the Phillips construction of the courts.Continue Reading Judge Gilstrap Cautions on Tactics Directed Solely to PTAB Interests
Post SAS, there are fewer exceptions to IPR estoppel. Indeed, the absence of partial institutions has led to many courts finding the “reasonably could have raised” aspect of IPR estoppel to be broader than just the art of the ultimate Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) trial. As such, unsuccessful petitioners are now exploring alternative theories.
In The California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Limited, et al., (here) the Central District of California found that IPR estoppel applies where the same IPR reference is later raised under the “known or used” prong of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), rather than as a “patent or printed publication” as in the IPR.
Continue Reading IPR Art Simultaneously Qualifying as Known or Used Subject to Estoppel
The Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) stole much of the 2018 patent law spotlight. From landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Oil States and SAS Institute, to significant en banc Federal Circuit decisions in WiFi-One, PTAB practice evolved more in 2018 than in any prior year. That said, the most impactful 2018 changes for practitioners were driven by the agency.
Under the pro-patent leadership of Director Iancu, the agency is expected to drive still further change in 2019.
Continue Reading Top 5 PTAB Practice Developments of 2018
It is well-established that statements made by a Patent Owner during an inter partes review (IPR) can constitute prosecution disclaimer— even in papers filed by a Patent Owner before the trial. Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2016-1599 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017)
As a reminder, prosecution disclaimer prevents a patentee that clearly and unmistakably disclaimed a certain meaning for its patent claims during prosecution from recapturing this same meaning during claim construction in a subsequent litigation. As was the case in Aylus, Patent Owners are learning that the timing of such a disclaimer, or lack of express adoption by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB), is of no moment.
Continue Reading Beware Prosecution History in PTAB Trials
The Patent Trial & Appeal Board will host a special “Boardside Chat” webinar on Wednesday, Nov. 7 from noon to 1 p.m. ET. The webinar is free and open to everyone.
The program will address a variety of recent changes to procedures, including the process of paneling cases (Standard
The October edition of the PatentsPostGrant.com webinar series will be held this Wednesday October 24th @ 1-2PM (EST). The October program is entitled Adapting to the New Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB). This month’s program will include special guest Jonathan Bowser, Senior Patent Counsel for Unified Patents and will
A Patent Owner may only avail itself of an IPR estoppel defense in court upon demonstrating that a competent prior art search would have uncovered the art that is asserted post-IPR (i.e., raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2)) This demonstration of proof can be complicated by a number of factual questions such as the degree of skill of the searcher, the complexity of the art, and what was known by the petitioner and when.
A recent decision in the Southern District of Texas looks to simplify such disputes by utilizing invalidity contentions as estoppel markers.
Continue Reading Invalidity Contentions as IPR Estoppel Markers