Subscribe to all posts by Michael R. Weiner

Assignor Estoppel Does Not Prevent Reliance on PTAB Decision Canceling Claims

By Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Estoppel, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Trial Procedures
In Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., Case 19-2054 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2020), the Federal Circuit held that an assignor of a patent may rely on a PTAB unpatentability decision as a defense in infringement litigation, although the equitable doctrine of “assignor estoppel” prevents the assignor from directly challenging validity in the litigation. In … Continue Reading

Time Bar Challenge Must Be Raised before the Board, Not Saved for Appeal

By Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Real Party-in-Interest, Trial Procedures
Since the Federal Circuit’s 2018 en banc decision in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corporation, (discussed here) the court has reviewed a number of PTAB decisions on whether an IPR petition was filed more than one year after the petitioner was served with a complaint asserting the challenged patent, and thus time-barred under 35 U.S.C. … Continue Reading

Corroboration Required to Prove Earlier Invention Date

By Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Inter Partes Review, IPR, Trial Procedures
As we have discussed (here and here), owners of pre-AIA patents may be able to “swear behind” alleged prior art references by providing evidence of an earlier invention date, but the inventors’ testimony concerning conception of the invention must be corroborated by independent evidence. In Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. v. Graco Children’s Products, Inc., No. 2018-1259 … Continue Reading

Estoppel May Not Apply When Petitioner Lacks Standing to Appeal IPR Decision

By Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Appeals, Estoppel
In AVX Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc., No. 2018-1106 (Fed. Cir. May. 13, 2019), the Federal Circuit determined that a manufacturer did not have standing to appeal an adverse decision in an IPR challenging a competitor’s patent, because the petitioner did not have a present or nonspeculative interest in engaging in conduct arguably covered by … Continue Reading

Petitioner Has Burden of Persuasion on Real Party in Interest

By Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Discovery, Real Party-in-Interest, Trial Procedures
Under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a), an IPR petition must identify “all real parties in interest,” and, an IPR petition is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) if “filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, the real party in interest, or a privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging … Continue Reading

CBM Case Remanded to Determine if Claims are CBM Eligible under Unwired Planet

By Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Covered Business Method
In Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (discussed here), the Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB was using an overly-broad standard for CBM eligibility. Specifically, the PTAB was administering CBM review of patents if they included claims directed to activities that are “incidental to” or “complementary to” a financial activity.… Continue Reading

Inventor’s Uncorroborated Testimony Not Sufficient to Swear Behind Reference

By Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Inter Partes Review, IPR, Sections 102/103
Attempting to “swear behind” an alleged prior art reference has been common practice in IPRs, going back to the first IPR, Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Tech. LLC, IPR2012-00001 (PTAB 2013), aff’d sub nom. In re Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2015), aff’d sub nom., Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC v. … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Decides that IPR Final Decisions Must Address All Challenged Claims

By Sandip H. Patel and Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Covered Business Method, Estoppel, Institution / Denial, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Post Grant Review, Trial Procedures
On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, holding that if the Patent Office institutes an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, it must issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of every patent claim challenged by the petitioner. The Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s … Continue Reading

Is the PTAB Bound by a Prior Federal Circuit Claim Construction?

By Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Inter Partes Review, IPR, Trial Procedures
In Knowles Electronics LLC v. Cirrus Logic, Inc., No. 2016-2010 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB decision that upheld an examiner’s rejection of claims for anticipation in an inter partes reexamination (IPX). The same claims had earlier been challenged, and determined to be not invalid (over different prior art), in … Continue Reading

Patent Owner Estoppel May Apply When Patent Owner Cancels Claims Before IPR Institution

By Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Estoppel, Institution / Denial, Inter Partes Review, Trial Procedures
In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 2017-1239 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s entry of adverse judgment against Patent Owner Arthrex, before instituting inter partes review. Specifically, the PTAB entered judgment after Arthrex had disclaimed all challenged claims, but before the PTAB decided whether to institute a … Continue Reading

PTAB Should Have Considered Argument Raised in “Redundant,” Non-instituted Ground

By Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Institution / Denial, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Sections 102/103
In CRFD Research Ltd. v. Matal, No. 2016-2198 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 5, 2017), the Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB erred in its obviousness analysis, in part by failing to consider an argument the IPR petitioner made in a ground that the PTAB determined was “redundant” to the instituted grounds. Petitioner Hulu, LLC, challenged claims … Continue Reading

Error in Claim Construction Leads to Reversal of IPR Decision and Cancelation of Claims

By Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Appeals, Claim Construction, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Sections 102/103
Two recent Federal Circuit decisions illustrate how an error in construing claims may lead the court to reverse a PTAB final written decision. In Organik Kimya AS v. Rohm & Haas Co., the Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB correctly construed the disputed claim term, “swelling agent,” and therefore affirmed the PTAB’s decisions upholding the … Continue Reading

Aqua Products Dissent Would Keep Burden for Amendments on Patent Owners

By Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Amendments, Trial Procedures
As discussed here, the en banc Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, determining that the PTAB erred in placing the burden of persuasion on the patent owner for proposed claim amendments. Four judges on the eleven-judge en banc panel dissented, and would have upheld the PTO’s rule, … Continue Reading

Petitioner Made Rebuttal Argument in Reply, Not an Improper New Argument

By Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Inter Partes Review, IPR, Sections 102/103, Trial Procedures
PTAB rules prohibit raising new arguments in a reply brief, but it can be difficult to distinguish between an improper reply argument and a proper rebuttal. In Idemitsu Kosan Co. v. SFC Co., No. 2016-2721 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2017), the Federal Circuit determined that the IPR petitioner properly made a rebuttal argument—not a belated, … Continue Reading

PTAB Correctly Construed “Said” and Canceled Claims—but Was the Patent CBM Eligible?

By Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Section 112
In a CBM appeal, TransPerfect Global, Inc. v. Matal, No. 2016-1121 (Fed. Cir. July 12, 2017) (non-prec.), the Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB correctly construed the word “said” in the claim term “said hyperlink,” and determined that TransPerfect’s challenged claims were unpatentable for lack of written description. The court’s claim construction analysis is thorough … Continue Reading

Uncorroborated Declaration Not Sufficient to Avoid § 102(e) Prior Art

By Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Inter Partes Review, Sections 102/103
In EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of American, Inc. (Fed. Cir. June 15, 2017), the Federal Circuit determined that the Patent Owner’s uncorroborated declaration was insufficient to show that asserted prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) represented the work of the same inventive entity as the challenged claims, and with respect to certain … Continue Reading

Owner of Hot-Work Steel Processing Patent Burned by Its Own IPR Evidence

By Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Partes Review, Sections 102/103, Trial Procedures
In Rovalma, S. A. Böhler-Edelstahl GmbH & Co., No. 2016-2233 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s final written decision and remanded the case for the PTAB to provide a further explanation for its determination that the challenged claims were obvious. According to the court, the PTAB’s decision lacked sufficient detail … Continue Reading

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

By Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Appeals, Claim Construction, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Sections 102/103
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

Federal Circuit Upholds Cancellation of Micrografx Patent Claims for Anticipation

By Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Amendments, Claim Construction, Inter Partes Review, IPR
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

PTAB’s Reconsideration of Institution Decision Unreviewable on Appeal

By Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Appeals, Institution / Denial, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Real Party-in-Interest
In denying a petition for rehearing, the Federal Circuit determined in Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. that under Cuozzo, the court lacks authority to review a PTAB decision that reconsidered an IPR institution decision, and then terminated the IPR because the petition failed to identify the real party in interest. As we have … Continue Reading
LexBlog