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

Back in 1988, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court decision that refused to award a party its reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in successfully litigating a patent’s validity before the Patent Office. PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The Office determined that the patent asserted in litigation—stayed pending the Office’s review—was invalid and obtained through inequitable conduct. Nobody contested the district court’s conclusion that the case was exceptional.
Continue Reading Does Section 285 Permit an Award of Attorney’s Fees for Patent Office Proceedings?

On July 2, 2020, the Patent Office initiated the “Fast-Track Appeals Pilot Program,” which it designed to reduce the pendency of ex parte appeals. The program, effective for one year, is in a pilot stage to gauge the public’s interest and to assess its longer-term feasibility. The Office neither expects nor intends any delays for appeals that forego the pilot program. So, for now, participation in the program is first come, first served, limited to 500 applications, and requires submission of a short petition and payment of a modest fee. The program is likely welcome news, especially to those who have complained about the lengthy pendency often accompanying appeals.
Continue Reading Fast-Track Decisions on Ex Parte Appeals

The Federal Circuit, in Arthrex, concluded that the Patent and Trial Appeal Board’s Administrative Patent Judges were unconstitutionally appointed “principal” officers. The court therefore vacated the Board’s decision that canceled claims in an inter partes review and remanded so a new panel of APJs would re-decide the patentability of the claims. What happens, however, when the Board’s pre-Arthrex final written decision does not cancel—but rather upholds the patentability of—the challenged claims? Well, there’s an appeal for that.
Continue Reading The Arthrex Mulligan

Adidas successfully petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in 2012 to review a Nike shoe patent. During that review, Nike filed a motion to amend the patent by canceling all claims and substituting four new claims. The Board canceled the patent claims and found the new claims unpatentable. Among other things, the Board said that Nike—the patent owner—did not establish the new claims were patentable over the prior art.
Continue Reading The Long Run

Update (Apr. 3, 2020): The Federal Circuit recently denied rehearing petitions in the Polaris appeals referenced below (see link and link), and also denied the PTO’s request to stay the mandate in the Arthrex appeal (see link).

The Federal Circuit recently issued an order denying multiple rehearing petitions in Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 23, 2020) (en banc). Apparently neither of the parties nor the government (PTO) found the original panel’s Halloween-day decision satisfying. Five separate opinions accompanied the order, which was hardly unanimous. One third of the circuit judges dissented, some having previously stated that aspects of the original panel decision were wrong.
Continue Reading A Fine Mess

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., Appeals 2019-1169, -1260 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2020), is remarkable, but not for its holding: “the Board may not cancel claims for indefiniteness in an IPR proceeding.” After 10,000 IPRs, hardly anyone thought otherwise. But it’s interesting nonetheless that someone so boldly tried to persuade the Board and the court otherwise. A $4.3 million willful infringement judgment will lead even the biggest of corporations to give it a try.
Continue Reading Come on, Board, Finish What You Started

On Winter’s eve, the Board’s Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) finally answered a question it posed in an April order: “What is required for a petitioner to establish that an asserted reference qualifies as [a] ‘printed publication’ at the institution stage?” As we earlier noted, the April order granted an aggrieved petitioner’s request for rehearing of a Board decision refusing to institute inter partes review because the petitioner apparently did not establish a book bearing a 1990 copyright date was publicly available before the 1995 date on which the application for the subject patent was filed. The case is Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).
Continue Reading POP Hits a Softball

If the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex wasn’t sufficiently newsworthy, then look at what lurks in its wake. The day after the decision, the court issued precedential orders indicating that a timely Constitutional challenge apparently must be presented to the court in an opening brief. A few days after those orders, two of the court’s most senior active-service judges said that the court’s remedy in Arthrex (i) wasn’t required by Supreme Court precedent, (ii) imposed unnecessary burdens on all involved in AIA trials, (iii) requires hundreds of new proceedings, and (iv) involves decision-making that is itself unconstitutional. And a day later, another panel of the court issued an order soliciting briefing on those and other issues left in Arthrex’s wake, tacitly questioning the Arthrex panel’s decision.Continue Reading Haste Makes Waste?

In Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 31, 2019), the Federal Circuit concluded that the PTAB’s Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) are “principal” officers and their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce therefore violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The issue arose in an appeal of a decision by a panel of APJs canceling claims in Arthrex’s patent in a recent inter partes review (IPR). But because that decision occurred while there was an Appointments Clause violation, the court vacated and remanded the IPR to be decided by a different panel of APJs.
Continue Reading Fixing an Appointments Clause Violation

The Patent Office issued Honeywell a patent that required correction. The patent, according to Honeywell, did not include the proper claim for the benefit of priority to the filing date of an application that Honeywell had earlier filed. But before Honeywell noticed the error and tried to correct that priority claim, its competitor, Arkema, petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute a post grant review proceeding. Shortly after institution, Honeywell sought the Board’s authorization to file a motion for leave to obtain from the Patent Office’s Director a certificate of correction. After all, the Director often issues certificates to correct priority claims. But the Board refused authorization and ultimately canceled the patent. On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decision, chastising the Board for abusing its discretion. Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Appeals 2018-1151, ‑1153 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 1, 2019).Continue Reading The Chaos of Too Many Rules

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.