PTAB

Subscribe to PTAB via RSS

Claimed Ranges Overlapping with Prior Art Shift Burden of Production to Patent Owner

Since the Federal Circuit’s decision in Magnum Oil, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) has been mindful that the ultimate burden of persuasion must remain with the patent challenger. While this general rule guides most proceedings at the PTAB, as the Federal Circuit reminded the Board today, there are exceptions for the burden of production.

In E.I. Dupont De Nemours v. Synvina C.V. the Court considered whether a claimed range shown to be overlapping with that of the prior art creates a rebuttable presumption of obviousness. The Court reiterated that it did, and that once an overlap is shown by a Petitioner, it falls to the Patent Owner to come forward with appropriate rebuttal evidence.
Continue Reading CAFC Explains PTAB Burden Shift for Claimed Ranges

Federal Circuit Finds PTAB Discovery Determinations One-Sided

On the heels of Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corporation, the Federal Circuit once again finds itself considering a PTAB RPI/Privity dispute. In RPX, the Court held that “determining whether a non-party is a “real party in interest” demands a flexible approach that takes into account both equitable and practical considerations, with an eye toward determining whether the non-party is a clear beneficiary that has a preexisting, established relationship with the petitioner.” That is, the inquiry is fact-dependent, and not limited to one party controlling the other as some PTAB decisions seemed to suggest.

Last week, the Court examined the allocation of burdens in such disputes in Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., finding that the PTAB may be improperly shifting the burden to Patent Owners in RPI/Privity discovery disputes.
Continue Reading Burden Clarification To Expand PTAB Discovery for RPI/Privity Disputes?

The Impact of SAS Institute on Statutory Estoppel

IPR estoppel is established under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), which provides that “the petitioner in an inter partes review of a claim in a patent . . . that results in a final written decision . . . may not assert . . . in a civil action . . . that the claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.” (emphasis added). Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute, the courts did not apply statutory estoppel to grounds upon which the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) refused to institute trial. The reasoning was that statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) only applied to grounds adjudicated in a Final Written Decision (FWD).  As such, grounds shaken out (i.e., partial institutions) prior to trial could not be covered by such estoppel.

Post-SAS, of course, there are no longer partial institutions and this previous distinction simply goes away.  But what happens to those partially instituted cases that remain pending, can a petitioner side-step the revived SAS grounds in the hope of holding onto this estoppel exception? 
Continue Reading Failure to Pursue SAS Grounds Leads to Statutory Estoppel

Patent Owner’s Given New Rights in Trial Practice Guide Update

The Federal Register will issue a notice updating the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) Trial Practice Guide on Monday, August 13, 2018.  You can find a copy of this notice in the advanced reading room (here).  The update provides a number of changes to update the guide as to outdated material, but more importantly, provides significant, new benefits for Patent Owners.
Continue Reading Patent Owners to Get Last Word at PTAB – Starting Now

CAFC Emphasizes Flexibility of its Printed Publication Jurisprudence

Last week, I pointed out that the Federal Circuit faulted the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) for its narrow public accessibility analysis in Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry. Given the de novo review of printed publication status at the Federal Circuit, it is an issue that is frequently challenged on appeal.

Last Friday the Court took another opportunity to apply its multi-factor analysis to a printed publication dispute in GoPro Inc., v. Cointour IP Holdings, LLC.  In GoPro, the Court once again emphasized that focusing on a single factor (expertise of the audience) to the exclusion of others is reversible error. In reversing the Board’s decision in GoPro, the Court emphasized (here) that the reasonable diligence standard is applied to those skilled in the art. And that, proof of actual dissemination is not required, only that a person of skill could have located the publication with reasonable diligence.

In still another recent case, the Court explained that a commonly emphasized factor at the PTAB, indexing/searchability, is not a requirement to prove a printed publication publicly accessible.
Continue Reading Publication Need not be Indexed/Searchable to be Prior Art

Public Accessibility: A Fact Intensive Inquiry

Yesterday I highlighted a significant decision for Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) practitioners pertaining to Real-Party-In-Interest (RPI) and privity determinations, Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corporation. In Applications, the Federal Circuit faulted the Board for its narrow analysis of the facts, explaining that a more fact-intensive analysis was in order that takes into consideration the complete record. The Court’s rebuke of the PTAB’s RPI/Privy analyses reminded me of another significant Federal Circuit decision of the last few weeks that will recalibrate established PTAB practices.

In Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry the Court also faulted the Board for its narrow analysis of public accessibility. And, like its decision in Applications, directed the Board to perform a more fact intensive analysis of the entire record.
Continue Reading Printed Publications & The PTAB

Federal Circuit Denies Tribal Sovereign Immunity from PTAB Proceedings

Last Friday, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s (PTAB) denial of tribal sovereign immunity as a patent owner defense to an AIA trial challenge. The decision tracks my November prediction that the Court would follow its reasoning in Ultratec, Inc. v. Captioncall, LLC, 2017, (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2017), which explained that PTAB proceedings were not “trials” in an Article III sense. You can find Friday’s decision in St. Regis Mohawk Tribe v Mylan Pharm., Inc. (here)

The Board noted that the question of state sovereign immunity was left for another day, but was it really?
Continue Reading Tribal Sovereign Immunity Denied, Will State Immunity Hold at the PTAB?

PTAB Conferences Provide Unique Exchange with Stakeholders

While the summer months are relatively quiet when it comes to marquee CLE events and bar organization gatherings, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) is providing a rare opportunity for stakeholders in late July.

On the heels of its successful programs in Alexandria, Denver and Dallas, the…