When a patent is co-owned by a state university and another party, an IPR may proceed against the remaining party even after the state university co-owner has been determined to have sovereign immunity from the proceeding. Reactive Surfaces Ltd., LLP v. Toyota Motor Corp., [Case No. IPR2017-00572, Paper 32 (July 13, 2017)]. This recent decision was the first to address a situation where a university owned a patent jointly with a company. This decision follows two earlier cases, Covidien v. University of Florida , discussed here, and NeoChord, Inc. v. University of Maryland, Baltimore, [Case No. IPR2016-00208, Paper 28 (PTAB, May 23, 2017)], where the Board determined that sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment as an “arm of the state” prevents an IPR from being instituted regarding patents owned by state universities.
Continue Reading IPR Challenge May Proceed Even in the Absence of Some Patent Owners
Eli Lilly Successfully Challenges U Penn Erbitux® Claims at PTAB, Derailing Infringement Suit
The PTAB recently canceled the University of Pennsylvania’s U.S. Patent No. 7,625,558, a potentially fatal blow to the University’s suit against Eli Lilly and Company alleging its cancer therapeutic Erbitux® (centuximab) infringes the patent. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Trustees of the Univ. of Penn., Case IPR2016-00458 (July 13, 2017). The PTAB’s decision resolved testimony from the parties’ competing expert witnesses in favor of the Petitioner (Eli Lilly and Company), thus highlighting how the PTAB’s scientific acumen can be leveraged to effectively short-circuit an otherwise expensive and time-consuming lawsuit.
Continue Reading Eli Lilly Successfully Challenges U Penn Erbitux® Claims at PTAB, Derailing Infringement Suit
Enactment of the STRONGER Patents Act Would Severely Limit PTAB Proceedings
The STRONGER (Support Technology & Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience) Patents Act of 2017 was recently introduced in the Senate. The Act is an updated version of the STRONG Patents Act of 2015 that stalled in Congress. Like its predecessor, the STRONGER Patents Act is designed to significantly modify the AIA trial proceedings at the PTAB. Enactment of this Act would severely diminish the usefulness of AIA proceedings.
Continue Reading Enactment of the STRONGER Patents Act Would Severely Limit PTAB Proceedings
Attorney Argument Doesn’t Provide Substantial Evidence To Support PTAB
In Google Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, Appeal 2016-1543, 2016-1545 (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision canceling some claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,121,960, but vacated the portion of the decision that refused to cancel other claims. With respect to the upheld claims, the court remanded the matter because the PTAB failed to adequately explain its findings, noting that the PTAB’s “disagreement with [the petitioner] … does not amount to a satisfactory explanation for its finding” that those claims are not unpatentable. Google at 12.
Continue Reading Attorney Argument Doesn’t Provide Substantial Evidence To Support PTAB
Look to the Claims for Estoppel
In three recent decisions, the Federal Circuit reiterated the importance of determining estoppel in PTAB proceedings on a claim-by-claim basis.
In the earlier related decisions, In re Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC [1] , 856 F.3d 883 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and In re Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC [2], 856 F.3d 902 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the court addressed the effects of a district court judgment and settlement of a district court litigation on pending pre-AIA reexamination proceedings.
Continue Reading Look to the Claims for Estoppel
Kyle Bass Gets Fresenius’ Diprivan Claims Canceled in IPR
On June 7, 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision in IPR 2016-00254 canceling claims in a Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (Fresenius) patent covering Diprivan®. The PTAB instituted the IPR in response to a petition filed by hedge fund manager Kyle Bass and his colleague Erich Spangenberg. Diprivan® is the commercial name for propofol, an intravenous anesthetic agent used during surgery and other medical procedures.Continue Reading Kyle Bass Gets Fresenius’ Diprivan Claims Canceled in IPR
Uncorroborated Declaration Not Sufficient to Avoid § 102(e) Prior Art
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 claims the PTAB failed to provide sufficient notice and opportunity to respond. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and vacated in part the PTAB’s decision that the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness.Continue Reading Uncorroborated Declaration Not Sufficient to Avoid § 102(e) Prior Art
PTAB Exercised Discretion to Terminate Ex Parte Reexaminations in Ariosa v. Illumina; CAFC to Review
Third parties seeking to challenge pre-AIA patents in the USPTO often choose between IPR and ex parte reexamination. In some cases, petitioners pursue both proceedings, sequentially or in parallel, taking advantage of different timelines to completion, different standards for institution, and using insights gained in one proceeding in the other. The PTAB recently exercised its discretion to terminate three reexaminations filed against patents also challenged by IPR in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., IPR2014-01093, Paper 81 (May 24, 2016). In the pending appeal, the stage is set for the Federal Circuit to consider the extent of the PTAB’s discretion in terminating post-grant proceedings in these circumstances. Case Nos. 2016-2388, 2017-1020 (Fed. Cir.).
Continue Reading PTAB Exercised Discretion to Terminate Ex Parte Reexaminations in Ariosa v. Illumina; CAFC to Review
One-Year Time Bar Does Not Apply to a Request for Joinder of IPR Proceedings
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) filed a Petition, seeking an IPR of claims 1–20 of Allergan’s U.S. Patent No. 8,642,556. [IPR2017-00579, Paper No. 9] Along with the Petition, Teva filed a Motion for Joinder to join Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Allergan, Inc., IPR2016-01129. This blog has previously reported on the topic of joinder in IPR Petitions here and here.
Teva’s Petition was not timely, having been filed more than one year after Allergan filed a complaint alleging infringement of the ‘556 patent against Teva. Teva’s Motion for Joinder, however, was filed within one month of the date that the Board instituted review in response to Mylan’s Petition. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), Teva’s Motion for Joinder with Mylan’s Petition was timely.
Continue Reading One-Year Time Bar Does Not Apply to a Request for Joinder of IPR Proceedings
Supreme Court to Decide Whether IPRs Violate Article III and the Seventh Amendment
An updated discussion of this issue is available here: The Supreme Court Finds IPR Proceedings Constitutional
The Supreme Court issued an order on June 12, 2017, indicating it will review the Federal Circuit’s judgment in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Green’s Energy Group, LLC, 639 Fed. Appx. 639 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (link). The petition presented three questions, of which the Court will address only one:
Whether inter partes review—an adversarial process used by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to analyze the validity of existing patents—violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury.
Continue Reading Supreme Court to Decide Whether IPRs Violate Article III and the Seventh Amendment