Inter Partes Review

Subscribe to Inter Partes Review via RSS

Justice Balance IconNotice of grounds for unpatentability in one proceeding does not provide notice in a second, related proceeding, even where the proceedings relate to the same patent, are between the same two parties, and include the same prior art reference. The Federal Circuit, in In re: NuVasive, Inc., Case Nos. 2015-1672 and 2015-1673 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 9, 2016), relied on the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and determined that the PTAB had violated the patent owner’s right to an opportunity to respond to grounds for rejection in one proceeding, while simultaneously determining that the patent owner had an opportunity to respond to the same grounds for rejection in a companion case.  In reaching its decision, the Court stated that “[t]he Director has furnished no persuasive basis on which we are prepared to hold that a (barely sufficient) notice in one proceeding constituted an obligation-triggering notice in the other proceeding in which a comparable notice was missing.”  (p. 11).

Continue Reading APA Requires Notice of and Opportunity to Respond to Grounds for Cancellation

Members OnlyOn July 27, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion vacating the GoPro, Inc. decision discussed in the post below.

On June 11, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued a decision vacating and remanding the Medtronic decision discussed in the post below.

An updated discussion of the Medtronic decision is available here:
PTAB Failed to Properly Apply Test for Printed Publication

Two recent PTAB decisions highlight important developments in qualifying a publication as a reference, available as prior art.  In one case, the PTAB concluded that a printed catalog did not qualify as a printed publication prior art because it was distributed only at a private tradeshow to persons not necessarily skilled in the art.  In the other case, the PTAB concluded that a video and associated slide presentation did not qualify as printed publications because these materials were distributed only to experts at a private, invitation-only conference.  These decisions interpret precedents from the Federal Circuit and offer simple examples of what type of publications may not qualify as prior art.
Continue Reading Prior Art Made Available at Members Only Gatherings May Not Satisfy “Publically Accessible” Requirement

"Gavel on copy of escrow agreement, soft shadow. White background, soft shadow. Gavel has seen much use. Please see more gavel photos:"

The PTAB’s recent decision on remand in Corning Optical Comm. v. PPC Broadband (IPR2013-00342, Paper No. 57), and the related decision on appeal (815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), serve as a reminder that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard does not permit an unreasonably broad construction.

In addition, the PTAB’s related order (see Paper 55), denying the parties’ requests for further briefing on remand, indicates that, when the Federal Circuit bases its claim construction on a party’s construction advanced during an earlier proceeding before the PTAB, the PTAB may choose to base its remand decision on the arguments and evidence in the record, without need for further briefing.
Continue Reading PTAB Upholds Claims Under Narrowed BRI Construction on Remand

Privilege Stamp 1In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on October 18, 2016, the USPTO proposes to amend the rules of practice before the PTAB to “recognize that, in connection with discovery conducted in certain proceedings at the [USPTO], communications between U.S. patent agents or foreign patent practitioners and their clients are privileged to the same extent as communications between clients and U.S. attorneys.” 81 Fed. Reg. 71653 (Oct. 18, 2016).  The rule would apply to the various PTAB proceedings that entail discovery, including IPRs, PGRs, the transitional program for CBMs, and derivation proceedings.
Continue Reading Proposed Rule to Recognize Patent Agent Privilege in PTAB Proceedings

Closeup of hands on clock face

In denying a petition for rehearing, the Federal Circuit determined in Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. that under Cuozzo, the court lacks authority to review a PTAB decision that reconsidered an IPR institution decision, and then terminated the IPR because the petition failed to identify the real party in interest.

As we have previously discussed, the Supreme Court in Cuozzo determined that under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), a PTAB decision on institution of an IPR is nonappealable, although such a decision might be appealable if it implicated constitutional questions or raised issues of the agency acting outside its statutory limits.
Continue Reading PTAB’s Reconsideration of Institution Decision Unreviewable on Appeal

A modified one way street sign indicating Second Chance

This blog previously referenced Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd., IPR2013-00290 as an example of the Board granting a request for rehearing, but ultimately confirming its original decision.  On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decision on the particular issues raised by the Petitioner in the request for rehearing, suggesting that if at first you don’t succeed, try again at the Federal Circuit.  Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd., 2015-1726, 2015-1727 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 23, 2016). (As we will discuss separately, on the Patent Owner’s cross-appeal, the Federal Circuit determined that it lacked authority to review the PTAB’s refusal to extend the equitable doctrine of assignor estoppel to PTAB proceedings.)
Continue Reading PTAB Failed to Properly Apply Incorporation by Reference Standard for Anticipation

Magnifying GlassWe previously reported on the Federal Circuit’s decision in Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Coviden, No. 2014-1771 (Fed. Cir. 2016) that the AIA does not preclude the same PTAB panel from rendering both institution and final decisions in an IPR, and we previously reported on the Federal Circuit’s denial, over Judge Newman’s strong dissent, of the Patent Owner’s petition for an en banc hearing of this decision.  On September 20, 2016, the Patent Owner, Ethicon, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, requesting Supreme Court review, and reversal of, the Federal Circuit’s decision.
Continue Reading Petition Solicits Supreme Court Review of PTAB’s Authority to Institute IPRs

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

In the October 3, 2016, Federal Register, the Patent Office published a notice of proposed rulemaking to adjust various fees the Office charges for its services, including 18% to 56% increases for AIA trial fees (as shown below).

According to the notice, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has received more than 4,700 AIA trial petitions since 2012, and it received over 1,900 in the fiscal year that ended September 30, 2016. In setting the fee structure for administering those trials, the Patent Office had to estimate the demand and workload based on limited data from its administration of inter partes reexamination and interference proceedings.
Continue Reading Patent Office Proposes to Increase AIA Trial Fees

Route 22 signA pair of recent decisions, one from a federal district court and another from the PTAB, highlight the potential of inconsistent results regarding patent validity. In Microwave Vision, S.A. v. ETS-Lindgren Inc., Civ. Action No. 1:14-CV-1153-SCJ (D. Ga. Sept. 20, 2016), the court denied an accused infringer’s (ETS’s) motion for summary judgment of invalidity, after addressing and ultimately disagreeing with the Board’s analysis of the patent in a parallel IPR. The Board opined, but did not decide, that the same patent claims may be invalid for indefiniteness and decided not to institute an IPR. This seemingly places a patent challenger in a Catch 22 position insofar as the Board won’t institute IPR to address prior art patentability because it cannot construe the claim, yet the court won’t conclude the claim is indefinite because it disagrees with the Board.
Continue Reading District Court Rejects Indefiniteness Argument Despite No Findings

disclaimer printed on rubber stamp

The Patent and Trial Appeal Board invoked the doctrine of prosecution history disclaimer to construe the claims at issue narrowly for the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 5,884,033; and thus, concluding that the claims had not been shown to be unpatentable in light of prior art. The Board rejected the Petitioner’s additional arguments that the claims as construed were not adequately described in the specification. The Board noted that it was not proper for it to consider whether the claims as construed were valid under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph.
Continue Reading No Written Description, No Problem when Prosecution History Disclaimer is Applied

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.