Inter Partes Review

Subscribe to Inter Partes Review RSS Feed

Federal Circuit Affirms Obviousness Decision by Board, No Violation

By Kate Nuehring Su on Posted in Appeals, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Sections 102/103
In Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrocare Corp., Appeal No. IPR2016-00918 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision in an IPR to invalidate patent claims on the basis of obviousness, determining that the Board did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by describing the motivation … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Addresses Constitutional Issue Supreme Court Left Open

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Inter Partes Review
In consolidated appeals of a trio of Board decisions canceling pre-AIA patents in inter partes reviews (IPR), the Federal Circuit held “that the retroactive application of IPR proceedings to pre-AIA patents is not an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment.” Celgene Corp. v. Peter, Appeals 2018-1167, -1168, -1169, Slip Op. at 3 (Fed. Cir. July … Continue Reading

A Reference is Publicly Accessible if a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art Could Access the Reference

By Julianne M. Hartzell on Posted in Inter Partes Review, IPR, Sections 102/103, Trial Procedures
In a recent decision vacating the PTAB’s finding that a draft standard for video coding emailed to a listserv was not publicly accessible, the Federal Circuit again corrected the PTAB’s application of the legal standard to determine the public accessibility of prior art. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Infobridge Pte. Ltd., case no. 2018-2007, 2018-2012, … Continue Reading

Corroboration Required to Prove Earlier Invention Date

By Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Inter Partes Review, IPR, Trial Procedures
As we have discussed (here and here), owners of pre-AIA patents may be able to “swear behind” alleged prior art references by providing evidence of an earlier invention date, but the inventors’ testimony concerning conception of the invention must be corroborated by independent evidence. In Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. v. Graco Children’s Products, Inc., No. 2018-1259 … Continue Reading

PTAB Precedential Decisions on Discretion to Institute Inter Partes Review

By Marshall Gerstein on Posted in Institution / Denial, Inter Partes Review, IPR
In May 2019, the PTAB designated precedential two IPR decisions related to its discretion to institute inter partes review. In Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., the Board denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), applying the precedential General Plastic factors to deny institution of a follow-on petition.  See General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. … Continue Reading

USPTO to Patent Owners – Don’t Forget About Reexams and Reissues

By Heather R. Kissling on Posted in Amendments, Ex Parte, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Reexamination
Recently updated statistics from the USPTO provide little comfort for patent owners seeking to amend claims during an IPR proceeding.  The Motion to Amend Study, Installment 5 through FY2018, updated March 2019, reports that patent owners have filed a motion to amend in 326 of the 3,599 completed trials (9%) and in 90 of the … Continue Reading

State University Patents Are Not Immune from Inter Partes Review

By Marshall Gerstein on Posted in Inter Partes Review, IPR
The Federal Circuit on June 14 affirmed Patent Office decisions in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings canceling patents the University of Minnesota owned, concluding that “state sovereign immunity does not apply to these proceedings.” The court’s conclusion is not limited to instances where, for example, a state university waives its sovereign immunity by asserting a … Continue Reading

Estoppel Remains Malleable

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Estoppel, Inter Partes Review, IPR
A few months ago, in BTG International Ltd. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, the Federal Circuit invited the Patent Office’s views on the scope of the petitioner estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). We noted then that this is an estoppel a district court may apply, but the Patent Office may not. In response to the … Continue Reading

PTAB Must Consider All Grounds Raised in an Instituted Petition

By Julianne M. Hartzell on Posted in Inter Partes Review, Trial Procedures
In AC Technologies S.A. v. Amazon.com, the Federal Circuit confirmed the PTO’s interpretation of SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018) (discussed in greater detail here) requiring that the PTAB address each ground of invalidity raised in an instituted petition in its final written decision. 912 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2019).… Continue Reading

Have You Included Specific Reference to Every Document in Your Priority Claim?

By Lynn L. Janulis, Ph.D. on Posted in Appeals, Inter Partes Review
Incorporation by reference is not sufficient to satisfy specific reference to each prior-filed patent application to be entitled to an earlier priority date (Droplets, Inc. v. E*Trade Bank (887 F.3d 1309 (2018)). This appeal to the Federal Circuit stems from a dispute between Droplets, Inc. and E*TRADE Bank, over a patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,402,115 … Continue Reading

Patent Office Announces New Amendments Procedure for AIA Trials

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Amendments, Inter Partes Review, Trial Procedures
For AIA trials instituted on or after March 15, 2019, the patent owner may opt-in to a pilot program the Patent Office implemented for motion to amend (“MTA”) practice and procedures in the PTAB’s administration of these trials. Today’s Federal Register (link) includes the Patent Office’s explanation of the program, which it proposed in October … Continue Reading

Newly Appointed Chief Judge Scott Boalick Addresses PTAB Bar Association

By Julianne M. Hartzell on Posted in Inter Partes Review, Trial Procedures
Addressing the PTAB Bar Association Conference in its opening session, newly appointed Chief Judge Scott Boalick explained that his goal as Chief Judge is to bring stability to the board and increase predictability. He wants all parties coming to the Board to feel that they have gotten a fair shake and that the procedures are … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Invites Patent Office to Open Pandora’s Box

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Estoppel, Inter Partes Review
It is puzzling, if not troubling, that the Federal Circuit recently invited (link) the Patent Office to submit a brief expressing its views on the scope of the petitioner estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), a veritable Pandora’s Box. It is puzzling because only the judiciary can apply this estoppel provision, the Patent Office cannot. … Continue Reading

FC Affirms Obviousness Decision by Board Trigger of Time Bar

By Kate Nuehring Su on Posted in Appeals, Claim Construction, Inter Partes Review, Sections 102/103
In Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. F’real Foods, LLC, Appeal No. IPR2016-01107 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decision in an IPR upholding the patentability of a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Additionally, the court discussed but did not determine whether improper … Continue Reading

“Your Call”: Fed. Cir. Says OK not to Reconsider Despite Remand

By Thomas L. Duston on Posted in Inter Partes Review, IPR
In Dell, Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 884 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board was not required to consider arguments first presented by the petitioner at oral argument, despite having remanded an earlier appeal of the Board’s decision for that very purpose. In that earlier appeal, … Continue Reading

Trade Show Publication Dooms Patent in IPR Appeal Despite Contrary Decision in ITC Appeal

By Heather R. Kissling on Posted in Inter Partes Review, Printed Publication, Sections 102/103
Inter partes review not only provides a faster and cheaper way to challenge patent validity, but also expands the Patent Office’s ability to develop law on esoteric issues relating to prior art. The Federal Circuit’s decision Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc. is another in a line of cases arising out of IPR … Continue Reading

Confusion and Delay

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Inter Partes Review, IPR
In Oil States Energy Services., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, Justice Thomas, writing for a 7-2 majority of the Supreme Court, explained that inter partes review proceedings do not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution. 138 S. Ct. 1365 (2018). But his opinion for the majority invited confusion and delay, … Continue Reading

IPR Estoppel Does Not Apply to ITC Investigative Staff

By Julianne M. Hartzell on Posted in Estoppel, Inter Partes Review, IPR
Judge Cheney of the United States International Trade Commission held that ITC Investigative Staff are not estopped from asserting invalidity of a patent based upon prior art that was previously asserted by a respondent in an IPR. See In the Matter of Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1058 at *106-107. While … Continue Reading

Successful IPR Petition Time Barred Under 35 U.S.C. §315(b) by Involuntarily Dismissed Complaint

By Kate Nuehring Su on Posted in Appeals, Institution / Denial, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Real Party-in-Interest
In Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., Appeal Nos. 2017-1555, 217-1626 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2018), the Federal Circuit vacated the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decision in an IPR because institution of the IPR should have been time barred under 35 U.S.C. §315(b).  Additionally, the Federal Circuit declined to … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Puts Nail in Coffin For Petitioner’s Case Challenging Casket Patent

By Marshall Gerstein on Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Partes Review, Sections 102/103
In Matthews International Corporation v. Vandor Corporation, No. 2017-1889 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2018) (non-precedential), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision to uphold the claims of Vandor’s patent that Matthews challenged in inter partes review. The claims at issue “are directed to ‘a casket arrangement’ made of pliable material, such as cardboard,” … Continue Reading
LexBlog