Tag Archives: Inter Partes Review / IPR

Evidence of Secondary Considerations Fails to Establish Nexus to Challenged Claims

In IPR 2016-00039, Costco challenged claims 1, 12 and 14 of USPN 7,228,588 owned by Bosch and drawn to beam (non-yoked) windshield wipers with spoilers to keep the wipers in contact with the windshield in high winds.  Petitioner combined one reference with each of two other references in support of obviousness challenges to the claims. … Continue Reading

Teaching Away for Dummies

In Meiresonne v. Google, Inc., No. 2016-1755 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision in IPR2014-01188 that the challenged claims in U.S. Patent No. 8,156,096 (the “’096 patent”) are unpatentable as obvious over the 1997 book “World Wide Web Searching for Dummies, 2nd Edition” by Brad Hill (“Hill”) and … Continue Reading

Joinder Does Not Prevent Application of IPR Estoppel Provision

A little more than a month after the Delaware district court narrowly interpreted the IPR estoppel provision to suggest that it may not be necessary to include all known grounds so as to avoid estoppel in district court litigation, the same court issued a decision suggesting that the IPR estoppel provision may not be so … Continue Reading

CFAD Fails to Knock Out 4 Acorda Patents to Multiple Sclerosis Drug

A recent set of final written decisions in four IPRs against Acorda Therapeutics puts more marks in the loss column for Kyle Bass and the Coalition for Affordable Drugs.  In IPRs 2015-01850, -01853, -01857 and -01858 (Coalition for Affordable Drugs v. Acorda Therepuatics Inc.), the Coalition for Affordable Drugs (CFAD) requested review of Acorda Therapeutics … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit to PTAB: Prior Art Cannot Anticipate Absent Disclosure of All Claimed Features

In Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., No. 2016-1900 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2017), the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion explaining that a prior art reference cannot anticipate a patent claim if the reference does not disclose all claimed features. That straightforward explanation of black letter law was prompted by a PTAB … Continue Reading

Secondary Considerations of Non-obviousness Retain Some Vigor

IPR 2015-01651 involved a dispute over the obviousness of claims in U.S. Patent No. 8,551,271 owned by Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. and drawn to a grooved crown bottle cap with thinner, harder steel than used in conventional caps.  World Bottling Cap, LLC, petitioned the Board to cancel the ’271 patent claims as being obvious based … Continue Reading

Coalition for Affordable Drugs Fails to Knock Out Biogen’s Tecfidera® Patent

On March 21, 2017, the PTAB refused to cancel claims of a Biogen MA Inc. (Biogen) patent covering multiple sclerosis drug Tecfidera® during IPR2015-01993, which was instituted in response to a petition filed by the Coalition for Affordable Drugs V LLC (CFAD), a group started by hedge fund manager Kyle Bass. Biogen’s U.S. Pat. No. … Continue Reading

Tech Industry Debates AIA Proceedings at Inaugural PTAB Conference

Introduction of Panelists and summary of Session Early March 2017 kicked off the PTAB Bar Association’s Inaugural Conference in Washington, D.C.  I had the privilege of attending several sessions, one of which was “View from the Tech Industry,” which included panelists from the Tech Industry who commonly practice before the PTAB in either petitioner or … Continue Reading

Pending Bill Would Deliver More Judicial Scrutiny to USPTO and FDA Rules

 The House of Representatives recently sent to the Senate its bill (H.R.5) that combines six previous regulatory reform bills, including, as Title II of the bill, the “Separation of Powers Restoration Act.”  Section 202 of the bill effectively removes the option for courts to apply Chevron deference to agency rulemaking and interpretations.  Thus, rather than deciding … Continue Reading

Another VIMOVO® Patent Survives Challenge by Coalition for Affordable Drugs – Updating the CFAD Scorecard

In the spirit of “if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again,” the Coalition for Affordable Drugs (CFAD) challenged a fourth Orange Book-listed patent relating to VIVOMO®, Horizon Pharma’s naproxen/ esomeprazole product.  While denying CFAD’s previous three petitions, the PTAB instituted inter partes review for U.S. Patent No. 8,945,621.  Despite CFAD’s success at the … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Affirms Cancellation of Claims Based on Analogous Art

In Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s IPR decision that the challenged claims are invalid as obvious and dismissed the PTAB’s CBM review as moot. Petitioner Google filed IPR and CBM petitions challenging claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 7,024,205 (“the  ’205 patent”) owned by Unwired Planet, LLC.  The … Continue Reading

Claims Construed and Canceled as Patent Nears its Expiration Date

In MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC v. Ricoh Americas Corp., Appeal 2016-1243 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision canceling all eight claims in U.S. Patent No. 8,488,173. The patent issued from an application that was the tenth continuation-in-part of a 20-year-old application that relies for priority on seven … Continue Reading

Don’t Switch Horses Midstream

In IPR2015-01157, 10X Genomics, Inc. challenged claims 1-31 of USPN 8,889,083 owned by the University of Chicago.  PTAB instituted trial on grounds of obviousness over two references.  Each party relied on the testimony of one or more experts, and the Patent Owner challenged expert testimony as exceeding the proper scope of Petitioner’s Reply. The technology … Continue Reading

What Claim Construction Standard Applies If a Patent Expires During IPR Appeal?

In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2016-1174 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 14, 2017), the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s construction of disputed claim terms, but did not resolve a dispute over whether the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard (BRI) or Phillips standard should apply when the challenged patent expires shortly after the PTAB issues its … Continue Reading

PTAB Declines to Institute IPR on Immersion’s Indefinite Means Plus Function Claims

Petitioners are finding themselves caught in a Catch-22.  The PTAB declares claims too indefinite under Section 112 to construe, but then declines to address the patentabilty of the claims.  Section 112 deficiencies are not grounds to challenge a patent in an IPR, but the PTAB has authority to find such deficiencies. Recently, the PTAB decided … Continue Reading

Your Supplemental Evidence is Timely, but is it Relevant to a Claim at Issue? PTAB Will Decide.

Once a trial has been instituted at the PTAB, a party seeking consideration of supplemental evidence may file a motion in accordance with the following requirements: (1) the request for the authorization to file a motion to submit supplemental information must be made within one month of the date the trial was instituted; and (2) … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Dismisses Appeal where IPR Petitioner Lacked Standing to Appeal

In Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc., No. 2016-1544 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2017), the Federal Circuit dismissed, for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution, a petitioner-appellant’s (Phigenix) appeal of a PTAB final written decision that refused to cancel claims challenged in an IPR. The court’s decision demonstrates that statutory right of appeal … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Upholds Cancellation of Micrografx Patent Claims for Anticipation

In recent non-precedential decisions, Micrografx, LLC v. Google Inc., Case No. 2015-2090 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 29, 2016) (Micrografx I) and Micrografx, LLC v. Google Inc. (Micrografx II), Case No. 2015-2091 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 29, 2016), the Federal Circuit upheld three IPR final written decisions canceling challenged claims of Micrografx patents for anticipation, and denying a … Continue Reading

Sovereign Immunity Protects State University Owned Patent from Inter Partes Review

The Patent and Trial Appeal Board dismissed petitions for inter partes review challenging the claims of a patent owned by a state university that had neither waived the protections offered it by the Eleventh Amendment nor consented to the trial.  Covidien LP v. University of Florida Research Foundation Inc., IPR2016-01274, -01275, -01276 (PTAB Jan. 25, … Continue Reading

Intuitive to Use Versus Use of an Element for its Intended Purpose – Is There a Difference?

Is there a difference between saying that it would be intuitive to use the features of one prior art reference in combination with another, versus saying that such a combination merely uses a prior art element for its established function? According to two recent decisions, the Federal Circuit apparently thinks so. In In re: Van … Continue Reading

Purdue Not Estopped From Raising Invalidity Contentions at Trial That Were Submitted But Not Instituted During IPR

Recently, the Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey allowed Purdue Pharma to assert invalidity arguments in the litigation that were previously submitted in an IPR petition, but upon which IPR review was not instituted. See Depomed Inc. v Purdue Pharma LP, Civil Action 13-571, Order (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 2016). The Court rejected … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Vacates Board’s Decision Cancelling Method Claims for Purchasing Goods and Services Based on Unreasonable Claim Interpretation

The Federal Circuit recently vacated PTAB final written decisions that rested on a claim construction contradicted by the patent’s prosecution history. Specifically, in D’Agostino v. Mastercard Int’l Inc., No. 2016-1592, 2016-1593 (Fed. Cir. December 22, 2016), the court vacated the Board’s IPR decisions of unpatentability of method claims in two patents directed to processes for … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit to take AIA Time Bar issue En Banc

As we had predicted in a previous post, the Federal Circuit, on January 4, 2017, granted patent owner Wi-Fi One LLC’s petitions for rehearing en banc regarding the interpretation of, and interplay between, 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) (the No Appeal provision) and § 315(b) (the Time Bar provision).  A few months ago, we wrote about … Continue Reading
LexBlog