The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is granting inter partes review (IPR) petitions at a 70% clip. Imagine the surpris
e, then, when on a single day, September 16, 2015, petitioners went an incredible 0 for 5—the PTAB denied five petitions for IPR and granted none! It seemed like a statistical improbability. Maybe a signal that the tides have turned for patent challengers?
Continue Reading PTAB Drops the Hammer on Petitioners: Five IPR Petitions Denied on the Same Day
PTAB Denies Institution of Another Investment Fund IPR Petition, Refusing to Ignore Claim Limitation Under BRI Standard
Score another win for pharma against investment funds-turned-IPR petitioners. On September 21, 2015, the PTAB denied institution of Ferrum Ferro Capital, LLC’s (“FFC”) petition for IPR of an Allergan patent claim related to its Combigan® eye-drop product for treating glaucoma. This dispute has attracted publicity for having bled into the courts, where Allergan has sued FFC for extortion, unfair competition, and malicious prosecution. The PTAB’s non-appealable denial of FFC’s petition is obviously a significant victory for Allergan, and follows the PTAB’s recent denials of two IPR petitions filed by the Coalition For Affordable Drugs.
Continue Reading PTAB Denies Institution of Another Investment Fund IPR Petition, Refusing to Ignore Claim Limitation Under BRI Standard
PTAB Applies the Estoppel Provision of the AIA to Deny an IPR Petition
The PTAB recently denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) on the basis of the estoppel provision of the AIA (35 USC § 315(e)). Apotex Inc. v. Wyeth LLC, IPR2015-00873, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 16, 2015). The decision is not appealable, and is significant because it offers guidance on how the PTAB will construe this provision and offers examples of when the PTAB will and will not apply the provision to deny grounds for an IPR.
Continue Reading PTAB Applies the Estoppel Provision of the AIA to Deny an IPR Petition
PTAB Denies Institution of Two IPR Petitions Filed by Hedge Fund
As the patent community anxiously awaits the PTAB’s decision concerning whether the Coalition For Affordable Drugs (CFAD) should be sanctioned for filing an IPR petition against a Celgene patent¹, the PTAB recently denied institution of two IPR petitions² the CFAD filed concerning two Acorda patents that cover Ampyra, a billion-dollar drug for treating multiple sclerosis. The CFAD is a wholly owned subsidiary of a hedge fund managed by Kyle Bass and, since February 2015, Bass and the CFAD have filed twenty nine IPR petitions against more than twenty patents different patents belonging to at least fifteen different companies.
Continue Reading PTAB Denies Institution of Two IPR Petitions Filed by Hedge Fund
USPTO Proposes Single APJ Pilot Program for IPR Institution
Citing an interest in improving efficiency, the USPTO published a request for comments on a proposed pilot program that would change the way Inter Partes Review petitions are decided. 
Currently, a panel of three administrative patent judges (APJs) consider IPR petitions and determine whether to institute and conduct a trial. The trial is then conducted before the same panel of APJs, which issues a final written decision on the merits.
Continue Reading USPTO Proposes Single APJ Pilot Program for IPR Institution
Suppliers Can Lack Standing to Seek CBM Review on Behalf of Customers
In several recent decisions, the PTAB has clarified the standing required to file petitions seeking Covered Business Method review. Under the AIA, standing to seek Covered Business Method review is limited to those charged with infringement and their “privies.” “Privies,” however, do not encompass merely any party with whom the petitioner is in “privity.” “Privies” is effectively synonymous with “customers”– and, not merely any customers, but customers who the petitioner is legally obligated to indemnify for their alleged infringement.
Continue Reading Suppliers Can Lack Standing to Seek CBM Review on Behalf of Customers
Gamble At Your Own Risk – The Danger Of Petition Overkill
Boehringer Ingelheim filed the petition at issue in IPR2015-00417 concurrently with the petitions at issue in IPR2015-00415 and IPR2015-00418 to challenge patents protecting methodologies for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with rituximab, an FDA-approved antibody for treating certain cancers. The IPR2015-00417 petition specifically challenged the fourteen claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,976,838, which are drawn to methods of administering rituximab to RA patients not responding to TNF-α inhibitors, a subset of RA patients. The PTAB instituted an IPR of two of the 19 obviousness grounds contained in the petition. Given the number, and nature, of grounds to be reviewed, and the outcome, it is apparent that the more grounds found in a petition, the greater the chance that the best arguments will be lost in the shuffle.
Continue Reading Gamble At Your Own Risk – The Danger Of Petition Overkill
Grinning Patentees Get A Mulligan
Filed concurrently with the petitions at issue in IPR2015-00417 and IPR2015-00418, Boehringer Ingelheim filed the petition at issue in IPR2015-00415 seeking review of U.S. Patent No. 7,820,161 owned by Genentech and Biogen Idec. The Board’s institution decision steadily whittled down Boehringer’s varied attacks on the patent. Ultimately, IPR was granted on 2 of the 36 obviousness grounds in the petition (additional grounds were summarily denied for failure to identify the ground with particularity), with the two surviving grounds implicating half of the 12 claims of the ‘161 patent.
Continue Reading Grinning Patentees Get A Mulligan
PTAB Denies Petitioner’s Request to Terminate IPR Two Months After Institution Decision
The PTAB denied a Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a motion to terminate an IPR without a final written decision, made only two months after the Board issued a decision instituting the IPR. Masterimage 3D, Inc. v. Reald Inc., Case IPR2015-00035, Paper No. 30 (June 25, 2015).
After institution of an IPR but before the Patent Owner had filed a response, the Petitioner Masterimage 3D, Inc. sought permission to request adverse judgment and termination of the IPR, to avoid the estoppel effects of a final written decision. The Patent Owner opposed this request, on the basis that it desires the Petitioner to be bound by estoppel effects of a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e); and because the Patent Owner may file a motion to amend in the proceeding.
Continue Reading PTAB Denies Petitioner’s Request to Terminate IPR Two Months After Institution Decision
Evidence of Denial of IPR Institution Allowed in District Court Infringement Action
On June 19, 2015 the District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Defendants’ motion in limine requesting the exclusion of evidence relating to a denial of an IPR institution from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Stoneeagle Services, Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc. et al, 8-13-cv-02240 (FL MD)). This decision contradicts recent decisions in other jurisdictions in which the results of IPR decisions have not been allowed in District Court actions (see Interdigital Commc’ns, Inc. v. Nokia Corp., No. 13-10-RGA,2014 WL 8104167 (D. Del. Sept. 19, 2014) and Ultratec, Inc. et al. v. Sorenson Communications, Inc., No. 3:13-CV-00346 (W.D. Wisc. Oct. 8, 2014 ).
Continue Reading Evidence of Denial of IPR Institution Allowed in District Court Infringement Action