Institution / Denial

Subscribe to Institution / Denial via RSS

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Federal Circuit will not review Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions refusing to institute inter partes review. The statute and a 2016 Supreme Court decision prohibit such review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(d); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140–42 (2016) (clarifying, however, that appellate review is appropriate to address “shenanigans”). The Federal Circuit has thus repeatedly held that parties may not sidestep this prohibition by styling an appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus.[1] The court reiterated as much again in In re Power Integrations, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2018‑144, ‑145, ‑146, ‑147 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018).
Continue Reading No Mandamus Relief from Shenanigan-less Non-institution Decision

In Application in Internet Time v. RPX Corp., Nos. 2017-1698, -1699, -1701 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2018), the Federal Circuit decided that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “applied an unduly restrictive test for determining whether a person or entity is a ‘real party in interest’ within the meaning of [35 USC] § 315(b) and failed to consider the entirety of the evidentiary record in assessing whether § 315(b) barred” IPRs petitioned by RPX more than one year after one of its clients, Salesforce.com, Inc. (Salesforce), was served with a complaint for infringing the challenged patents. Based on these decisions, the court vacated the Board’s final written decisions that canceled the challenged claims. The court’s decision is important if only because it offers guidance in determining how a non-party may be a real party in interest or in privity with a petitioner.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Admonishes PTAB for Taking Short-cuts

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 judgment, which upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) common practice of instituting review on some, but not all challenged claims, and then issuing a final written decision addressing only the claims for which review was instituted.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Decides that IPR Final Decisions Must Address All Challenged Claims

Serial IPR petitions directed to previously-challenged patents account for many of the petitions filed with the PTAB; however, 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) provides the Board with discretion to reject petitions where the same, or substantially the same, prior art or arguments have already been presented to the USPTO.  The Board recently designated as precedential part of its decision in General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Case IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (6 September 2017), addressing factors to be considered in determining whether to institute review for a serial, or “follow-on” petition.  Petitioner General Plastic filed a first set of petitions seeking IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,046,820 B1 (“the ’820 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 8,909,094 B2 (“the ’094 patent”).  Institution of a trial was denied for each petition based upon the merits.
Continue Reading Precedential and Informative Board Decision on Serial IPR Petitions

March 13, 2018, marked the fifth anniversary of the transition from the previous “first to invent” system to the AIA’s “first to file” regime.  The PTAB seemingly marked the occasion by instituting the first ever derivation proceeding one week later in Anderson Corporation v. GED Integrated Solutions, Inc., Case DER2017-00007, Paper 32 (March 21, 2018).

The concept of “derivation” was not created by the AIA.  Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) dictated that a person shall not be entitled to a patent if he did not himself invent the claimed subject matter. 
Continue Reading First Derivation Proceeding Instituted by PTAB

The Board recently denied a post grant review petition because the challenge was deemed redundant of the Patent Office’s earlier examination of similar claims in a related application. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. v. Complete Entertainment Resources  B.V., Case No. PGR2017-00038 (PTAB January 16, 2018). The decision offers a cautionary tale for patent practitioners.  The Board learned of the earlier examination from the patent owner, not the petitioner who was obliged to advise the Board of “related matters.”
Continue Reading Avoid Creating Bad Blood with the Board

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 trial. As a result of the PTAB’s adverse judgment, the Patent Owner is estopped, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(1), from obtaining another claim in a continuation application, for example, that is “not patentably distinct” from a canceled claim. Estoppel would not have applied if the PTAB would have instead decided not to institute the IPR.
Continue Reading Patent Owner Estoppel May Apply When Patent Owner Cancels Claims Before IPR Institution

Update: The Supreme Court issued a decision on April 20, 2020  holding that the patent statute (35 U.S.C. § 314(d)) bars judicial review of a PTAB decision of whether an inter partes review petition is time-barred pursuant to 35 USC 315(b). As stated by the Court, the PTAB’s “application of §315(b)’s time limit, we hold, is closely related to its decision whether to institute inter partes review and is therefore rendered nonappealable by§314(d).”

**********

Original Post: In Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corporation, an en banc panel of the Federal Circuit decided on January 8, 2018, that the PTAB’s application of the 35 U.S.C § 315(b) time bar to institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings is reviewable on appeal. The decision overrules Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 803 F.3d 652 (Fed. Cir. 2015), which held to the contrary.
Continue Reading PTAB’s Time Bar Determinations Are Reviewable by the Federal Circuit

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 of CRFD Research Ltd.’s patent directed to methods of transferring an ongoing software-based session from one device to another, allowing the user to begin a session on one device, such as a cell phone, and then transferring the session to another device, such as a laptop computer.
Continue Reading PTAB Should Have Considered Argument Raised in “Redundant,” Non-instituted Ground

If a Petitioner does not timely file the required petition fee, an IPR will not be instituted. In Cultec, Inc. v. Stormtech LLC  [Case No. IPR2017-00526, Paper 14 (July 17, 2017)], consistent with earlier decisions, the Board denied institution of an IPR because the Petitioner, Cultec, Inc., did not pay the required filing fee until the day after filing its petition, which was one day after the statutory filing deadline under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
Continue Reading Late Payment of Petition Fee Thwarts IPR

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.