Inter Partes Review

Subscribe to Inter Partes Review via RSS

Woman hands connecting two jigsaw puzzle pieces against sunset sky.

On January 19, 2016, the PTAB denied Coalition for Affordable Drugs V LLC’s (CFAD) request for rehearing following the Board’s decision denying institution of IPR.  In IPR2015-01086, CFAD filed a petition requesting an IPR of claims 1–13 in Biogen International GmbH’s (Biogen) U.S. Patent No. 8,759,393.  The Board denied the petition and CFAD filed a request for rehearing on the (same) grounds of anticipation and obviousness.  As discussed below, the denial of the rehearing highlights the importance of supporting all conclusions in an expert declaration with reasoned explanations.
Continue Reading PTAB Reminds Petitioners That Conclusions in Expert Declarations Must be Supported by Explanations

X OutRecently, the PTAB excluded Patent Owner expert witness testimony because during the expert’s deposition, on redirect, Patent Owner’s counsel asked leading questions.  IPR2014-01146, Paper 36, pg. 6.  The PTAB relied on Federal Rule of Evidence 611(c), and cited to McCormick on Evidence, § 6 (7th ed. 2013), which states “[a] leading question is one that suggests to the witness the answer desired by the examiner.”  Is the PTAB, in reading a cold record and applying an unforgiving reading of the rule, setting a dangerous precedent on admissible testimony?
Continue Reading I Object! The PTAB is Leading Practitioners to Inefficient Depositions

Split DecisionsThe AIA explicitly bestows the USPTO Director with the authority to institute IPRs and the PTAB with the authority to decide the ultimate question of patent validity.  The Director delegated the authority to institute IPRs to the Board, but is it proper to assign the decision to the same APJs that render a final decision?  A split panel at the Federal Circuit held that neither the AIA nor the Constitution precludes the same PTAB panel from rendering both institution and final decisions.  Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Coviden LP, No. 2014-1771 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Panel’s Authority to Institute IPRs and Issue Final Decision

Pen poised to sign a declaration. Classic silver and gold ballpoint, shallow depth of field.

If you rely in an IPR on a declaration submitted during prosecution, the PTAB may give it little or no weight if your opponent cannot cross-examine the declarant.

In Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. INO Therapeutics LLC, the PTAB instituted inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,846,112, directed to methods of providing nitric oxide gas for treating newborn children suffering from hypoxia.

In response, the Patent Owner relied not only on a supporting expert declaration, but also on three declarations submitted during prosecution of the ’112 patent.
Continue Reading PTAB Warns Again That Prosecution Declarations Without Depositions May Be Given Little or No Weight

stamp approved with red text over white background

As we’ve previously reported, patent owners have had little success arguing secondary considerations of non-obviousness during inter partes review. Underscoring the challenge that patent owners face, the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a PTAB obviousness determination despite finding that it had erred in its consideration of the patent owner’s evidence regarding objective indicia of non-obviousness.
Continue Reading Secondary Considerations Error Does Not Warrant Reversal

Evidence Dice Representing Evidential Substantiation and Proof

In Merck & CIE v. Gnosis S.P.A., Gnosis Bioresearch S.A., Gnosis U.S.A. Inc., Case No. 2014-1779 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2015), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision that the contested claims were invalid for obviousness, determining that the Board’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence, and agreeing with the Board’s conclusion of obviousness.  However, in dissent, Judge Newman asserted that the Federal Circuit’s substantial evidence standard of review for the Board’s factual findings in AIA trial decisions is not appropriate under the AIA, and that based on a review without deference, the Board’s decision in this case should be reversed.
Continue Reading Dissent: “Deferential review by the Federal Circuit falls short”

re-do written by a man over white background

In issuing a second final decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn Inc., IPR2012-00026/ IPR2013-00109, Paper No. 80 (Dec. 9, 2015), the PTAB dealt with a “what do we do now,” both procedurally and substantively, after its initial final decision was reversed in part and remanded “for further proceedings” by the Federal Circuit in an opinion available at 789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Federal Circuit’s partial reversal and remand stemmed from its conclusion that the PTAB, in its initial final decision, construed two claim terms too broadly and employed that misconstruction in finding claims of the patent at issue invalid. Our prior discussion of the Federal Circuit decision is at this link.
Continue Reading PTAB Confronts Issues Raised By IPR Remand From Federal Circuit

EPO FlagsTwo recent PTAB final written decisions illustrate the difficulty in convincing the PTAB to grant a motion to exclude evidence, in particular on the grounds of relevance, more particularly for evidence submitted in support of a party’s claim construction position.
Continue Reading Evidence From Prosecution and District Courts Not Excluded

Person writing on a clipboard form with a pen. Could be giving feedback or completing a surveyUpdate: Overruled in part by Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal.  In a subsequent order, the court vacated the portions of the panel’s and the PTAB’s decisions concerning the patent owner’s motion to amend, and remanded the case to the PTAB for proceedings consistent with the Aqua Products decision.

In December 4, 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed in a split opinion the Board’s final written decision in ScentAir Techs., Inc. v. Prolitec, Inc., IPR2013-00179, finding that the two claims of Prolitec’s U.S. Patent No. 7,712,683 (“’683 patent”) were unpatentable and denying Prolitec’s motion to amend.  Although several issues were addressed by the Board and Federal Circuit, perhaps of most interest is the court’s conclusion that the Board properly denied Prolitec’s motion to amend because Prolitic did not demonstrate patentability of the substitute claim over prior art of record during prosecution of the patent. 
Continue Reading Federal Circuit: Patent Owners Must Consider Prior Art from Prosecution History in Motion to Amend

Solution and strategy path questions and clear planning for ideas in business leadership with a straight path to success choosing the right strategic plan with yellow traffic signs cutting through a maze of highways.

The ability to appeal the determination on institution of an IPR is expressly limited by statute. 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) states: “The determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.” An identically-phrased limitation is also applicable to PGR institution decisions at 35 U.S.C. § 324(e), and by extension, to CBMR institution decisions. On its face, this part of the post-grant proceedings schema seems clear and simple: PTAB institution decisions are not to be appealable.
Continue Reading Institution Decisions are Nonappealable. Settled? Maybe Not Yet.

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.