IPR

Subscribe to IPR via RSS

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

Update: The Supreme Court issued a decision on April 20, 2020  holding that the patent statute (35 U.S.C. § 314(d)) bars judicial review of a PTAB decision of whether an inter partes review petition is time-barred pursuant to 35 USC 315(b). As stated by the Court, the PTAB’s “application of §315(b)’s time limit, we hold, is closely related to its decision whether to institute inter partes review and is therefore rendered nonappealable by§314(d).”

**********

On January 19, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued an order vacating the decision discussed in the post below and reinstating the appeal for reconsideration in view of the court’s en banc decision in Wi-Fi One LLC v. Broadcom Corporation, which we discuss here. A new decision on the merits may be expected later in 2018.

Original Post: In Click-to-Call Techs. v. Oracle Corp., Appeal 15-1242 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 17, 2016) (non-prec.), on remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration in view of Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) (as we discussed here), the Federal Circuit again dismissed the patent owner’s (Click-to-Call’s) appeal, concluding that the court lacks jurisdiction to review a decision by the PTAB to institute an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition over a patent owner’s objections that the IPR petition is time barred.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Dismisses Appeal Based on AIA Time Bar, But Two Judges Call for En Banc Review

Gavel, electronic device and diagram for patent application. Concept for patent attorney.

An updated discussion of this issue is available here: Supreme Court Decides that IPR Final Decisions Must Address All Challenged Claims

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for rehearing en banc, effectively reiterating that the PTAB may, in its sole discretion, choose to institute an IPR proceeding on some, but not all, of the patent claims challenged in an IPR petition.  The rehearing petition sought the full court’s review of a split three-judge panel decision in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Complementsoft, LLC, Nos. 2015-1346, -1347 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 10, 2016), that applied Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2016), to conclude that there is no statutory requirement that a PTAB final written decision address every claim raised in an IPR petition.
Continue Reading PTAB May Institute an IPR Proceeding on a Subset of Challenged Claims

In two final written decisions (IPR2015-01093 and IPR2015-00990), the PTAB found that challenged claims in Shire’s U.S. Patent No. 7,056,886 (the ’886 patent) were invalid as obvious.  The decisions highlight potential issues related to patents directed to pharmaceutical formulations that petitioners and patent owners alike may want to consider if confronted with an IPR related to such subject matter.

The Coalition for Affordable Drugs filed two petitions for IPR, one challenging claims 1−45 of U.S. Patent No. 7,056,886 (IPR2015-01093) and one challenging claims 46−52 and 61−75 of the ’886 patent (IPR2015-00990). 
Continue Reading PTAB Cancels Gattax® Patent Claims in Coalition for Affordable Drugs IPRs

Closeup of hands on clock face

Neither the Federal Circuit nor the PTAB has provided much guidance concerning the proper application of the one-year time-bar for filing IPRs when privity is alleged.  Recently, however, in AM General LLC v. UUSI, LLC, Case IPR2016-01049, Paper 14 (PTAB November 7, 2016), the PTAB has provided some guidance.

On May 18, 2016, Petitioner AM General LLC filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of various claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,570,666 (“the ‘666 Patent”).  In its Preliminary Response to the Petition, filed on August 19, 2016, the Patent Owner, UUSI, LLC, urged denial of the Petition, contending the petition was time barred. 
Continue Reading Petitioner Not Time-Barred By Service of COFC Complaint

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

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

Trade SecretsI had the opportunity to attend the ChIPs (Chiefs of Intellectual Property) conference in Washington DC this week and thought that several of the panels that I attended would be of interest to the PTABWatch readership.  The organization is focused on the advancement of women in tech, law, and policy and enjoys strong participation from the judiciary, PTO, copyright office, and many prominent in-house and private-practice attorneys. For more information about ChIPs, check out the website at chipsnetwork.org.
Continue Reading ChIPs Conference Coverage

Question mark warning sign

On August 12, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an order vacating its decision in In re Aqua Products, Inc., 823 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and reinstating the appeal after granting the aggrieved patent owner’s petition for rehearing en banc.  We wrote about this decision a few months ago:

The Federal Circuit confirmed in a precedential opinion that the burden to prove patentability of an amended claim in an IPR proceeding rests squarely with the patentee, and in deciding a motion to amend claims, the Board only need consider the arguments presented by the patentee, not perform a full reexamination of the proposed claims. In In re Aqua Products, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1177 (Fed. Cir. May 25, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s denial of patentee Aqua’s motion to substitute claims because Aqua failed to prove patentability of the substitute claims. 
Continue Reading Who Must Bear the Burden of Proof Regarding Patentability of Amended Claims?

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.