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.
If you’re a patent owner faced with an expert declaration submitted by an IPR petitioner on reply, try to respond, and in multiple ways. Don’t just complain that the declaration should be excluded. This was the Federal Circuit’s recent message in 
Two recent PTAB final written decisions highlight the benefits that the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard for claim construction provides to Petitioners, as well as the difficulty Petitioners face in proving inherent anticipation. The PTAB instituted two IPRs on the same patent: one on an anticipation ground, and another on an obviousness ground. The Petitioner failed to prove anticipation, but prevailed on obviousness of all claims of the patent.
In what appears to be only the second instance¹ to date, evidence of secondary considerations helped a Patent Owner defend against a Petitioner’s obviousness challenge during an IPR proceeding. In Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., the Board issued its final written decision and held that each of the eight challenged claims were not unpatentable, finding the Patent Owner “advances persuasive evidence” regarding the prior failure of others and the long-felt need in the industry. Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., IPR2014-00676, 
