Photo of Sandip H. Patel

Sandip H. Patel

Subscribe to Sandip H. Patel's Posts

Sandip H. Patel has more than 20 years of experience in representing clients in inter partes matters before the Patent Office, including interferences, reexaminations, and AIA trials. He has a formal education in chemical engineering, but his work in these matters has spanned the entire spectrum of engineering and sciences, including biotechnology, chemistry/chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, and electrical engineering. Read full bio here.

Contact:Read more about Sandip H. Patel

In 2020, Apple and several other parties collectively sued the Patent Office in a U.S. district court in California. They alleged that guidance* the Director gave the Patent Trial and Appeal Board—on how, while parallel patent litigation was pending, to exercise the Director’s discretion to deny inter partes review petitions—violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), particularly 5 U.S.C. § 706 (link). Apple Inc. v. Vidal, No. 20-CV-06128 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2024). Apple complained that the guidance led to too many discretionary denials of meritorious petitions and was otherwise also legally defective. When the lawsuit was filed, the Board made these institution decisions. Today, the Director does. The guidance is therefore largely meaningless unless the Director again delegates this task to the Board. Nonetheless, the Federal Circuit recently affirmed the district court’s rejection of Apple’s APA challenge. Apple Inc. v. Squires, Appeal 2024-1864 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2026).Continue Reading The Propriety and Cost of Discretionary Denial

Last summer, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that claims in a pair of patents owned by Agilent Technologies claiming chemically modified CRISPR guide RNAs are unpatentable. Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Synthego Corp., 139 F.4th 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2025). The court agreed that an earlier published international patent application filed by Pioneer Hi‑Bred sufficiently described these guide RNAs and enabled at least one embodiment within the scope of the challenged claims. The decision highlights the application of the substantial-evidence standard for reviewing the Board’s factual findings, and reinforces the presumption that printed publications are enabled prior art.Continue Reading The Power of Prophetic Disclosures

The Federal Circuit’s decision last fall in Merck Serono S.A. v. Hopewell Pharma Ventures, Inc., Appeals 2025‑1210, ‑1211 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2025), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Jan. 22, 2026) (link), offers important guidance on the meaning of disclosures “by another” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e)—a word-pairing that often determines whether a reference qualifies as prior art during prosecution and in litigation (including in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings).* The court’s opinion not only affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s conclusion of obviousness in these IPRs but also clarified the legal standard for inventive entity identity, drawing heavily on the CCPA’s decision in In re Land, 368 F.2d 866 (CCPA 1966).Continue Reading The High Hurdles in Disqualifying Prior Art

Practitioners before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board are well-acquainted with the statutory bar on judicial review of institution decisions. But what happens when the Board defers—for more than a year—a decision to rehear its non-institution decision, waiting for the Federal Circuit to clarify claim construction in parallel litigation involving the same patent and same parties? In Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC v. Ford Motor Company, Appeal 2024-1381 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2025) (“EBS”), the Federal Circuit addressed this scenario, providing a practical reminder of the limits of appellate review and the Board’s procedural discretion.Continue Reading PTAB’s Delay in Instituting IPRs Is Not Reviewable on Appeal

Can a defendant who prevails in an exceptional patent infringement suit by invalidating the patent in inter partes review (IPR) recover its associated Patent Office-related attorney’s fees? A split three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit recently said no in Dragon Intellectual Property LLC v. Dish Networks LLC, Appeal Nos. 2022-1621, -1777, Slip Op. at 8 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2024) (“Dragon V”). This blogsite previously discussed (link) several instances where courts, including the Federal Circuit, have authorized this recovery when the Patent Office proceedings substituted for aspects of the district court litigation between the same parties. How then did this two-judge majority conclude otherwise?Continue Reading Federal Circuit Holds Recoverability of Attorney’s Fees Does Not Extend to AIA Trials

The Federal Circuit recently upheld the Patent Office’s decision to reject claims in four separate reexamination cases due to obviousness-type double patenting (ODP). In re Cellect, LLC, Appeal Nos. 22-1293, -1294, -1295, -1296 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023). This decision is important because it expands ODP, a doctrine judges developed long ago, when patents…

After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the Patent Office implemented an interim process for the Director to review Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions in AIA trials. The Office sought public feedback on the process last year (link) and received more than 4,000 responses (link)! The process has yet to be formalized via traditional notice and comment rulemaking, though someday, perhaps, it will. Until then, the Patent Office continues to offer new updates and information, most recently on July 24, 2023.Continue Reading PTAB Updates and Expands the Director Review Process and Offers Transparency in Ex Parte Appeals

The Patent Office is not supposed to issue separate patents for the same invention to competing inventors. Several statutory provisions empower the Office to reject pre-AIA patent application claims of the later inventor. But sometimes it’s not clear who is the later inventor. Those provisions are therefore unhelpful. So, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board administers an increasingly rare proceeding called an “interference” to assesses which inventor was the last to invent. Through this proceeding, the Office cancels as unpatentable (under pre-AIA 35 USC § 102(g)) the claims of the inventor the Board determines was last to invent.Continue Reading Patent Interferences May Not Involve Pure AIA Patent

Isolated on white background with clipping path. 3D render.

The Patent Office’s Director recently notified the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) of the Office’s intent to set or adjust several fees that patent applicants, patent owners, and those challenging patents in AIA trials must pay. For applicants, this includes fee increases for filing applications and tiered fees for filing terminal disclaimers. This also includes tiered fees for filing continuation applications more than three or seven years after the earliest claimed benefit application was filed. Part of those fees are to offset the lost maintenance fees that patents issuing from those applications would otherwise incur had they been filed and issued earlier—obtaining revenue from maintenance fees purportedly helps reduce examination costs.Continue Reading Patent Office Proposes Increasing AIA Trial Fees

Cut Expenses

Collateral estoppel is a resource-saving shortcut. Judges consider it when an issue previously received sufficient judicial attention. And they apply it when the issue was resolved against the party now seeking, in some way, to circumvent that resolution. In the absence of some intervening change in the law or new evidence, resolution likely would be the same as before. Addressing the issue anew would therefore be a waste of everyone’s resources. So, the judge bars that party from re-litigating the issue and applies the consequences of the prior resolution. Collateral estoppel’s logical simplicity is manifest, but its application is sometimes complicated.Continue Reading Obvious Variants and the Hand of Fate

Resources & Info

Arthrex and the Supreme Court Resource Center

In United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the Supreme Court has heard whether 125+ PTAB decisions rendered through October 2019 must be remanded for new decisions. Read about how that issue developed through our post.

Learn more

Our Team

PTABWatch, provided by Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, analyzes and reports recent developments concerning Post-Grant Proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), including Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR), and Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings.