Post Grant Review

Subscribe to Post Grant Review RSS Feed

Priority Claims Unchallenged In Prosecution Can Be Weak Links

IPR2015-00291 decided a petition filed by Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd. against USPN 8,168,181 owned by Alethia Biotherapeutics, Inc.  The ‘181 patent issued from a continuation-in-part of the U.S. national phase of a PCT application and contains claims drawn to methods of impairing osteoclast differentiation, useful in treating various bone diseases.  The Board denied the Patent … Continue Reading

The Three-Front Assault: PeroxyChem Uses IPR, PGR and District Court to Challenge Opponent

In what could become a common patent challenge strategy, PeroxyChem, a chemical company that sells products useful in water and soil remediation, has employed a three-front assault—combining the relatively young post-grant review procedure, with an IPR and litigation–to take on one of its competitors, Innovative Environmental Technologies (IET).  Litigation together with an IPR has become … Continue Reading

“It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane, NO it’s a Granted Motion to Amend.”

We previously reported the May 9, 2016, Patent Office’s study that the PTAB rarely grants motions to amend.  There, we explained that patent owners rarely file motions to amend and, even when such motions are filed, the PTAB rarely grants such motions. Last week, in Google Inc. and Apple Inc., v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., Case … Continue Reading

Status Report on IPR Statistics for the Biotech/Pharma Technology Center

On June 30, 2016, lead APJ Jacqueline Wright Bonilla provided a status report on Inter Partes Review/Post Grant Review in the Biotechnology and Chemical Technology Center 1600 during the Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership (BCP) Conference.  The statistics discussed during this BCP Conference are current as of May 31, 2016. … Continue Reading

Trial Verdict Means Time Has Run Out to Get a Stay

Federal district courts are inclined to stay patent litigations when requested by patent challengers on the basis that the patent-in-suit is undergoing an AIA review proceeding at the USPTO; and those not so inclined, specifically in the Eastern District of Texas, have been corrected by the Federal Circuit. But this favorable disposition toward stays occurs … Continue Reading

Motion(s) to Amend (Almost Always) Denied!

Responsive to public interest in whether it is too difficult for Patent Owners to amend claims during PTAB Trials, the Patent Office recently published a study providing aggregate data about motions to amend filed with the PTAB since its inception in 2013.  The study, which was published by PTAB Chief Judge Nathan Kelly in the … Continue Reading

Supporting Evidence, Not Counter-Punching, May Be Needed In An IPR

In IPR2015-01537, Momenta petitioned for IPR of claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,476,239 owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) on grounds of obviousness over three references: Cohen, Shire, and Carpenter.  Petitioner also relied on expert testimony.  The claims recite formulations containing CTLA4Ig, which is a stabilized form of a negative regulator (checkpoint inhibitor) of the … Continue Reading

Patent Applicants Who Appeal Must Wait Their Turn with the PTAB

Biotechnology patent applicants dissatisfied with the examination of their patent applications can look to the PTAB for relief by filing an appeal – but they will need to be very, very patient. The procedures created by the America Invents Act (AIA) for challenging U.S. patents – inter partes review, post grant review, and covered business … Continue Reading

PTAB Grants Motion to Amend Claims

In IPR2015-00208, Shinn Fu petitioned for IPR of USPN 6,681,897 owned by Tire Hanger.  All five claims of the patent were drawn to methods of supporting vehicle wheels removed from a vehicle while on a service lift, wherein the supports would allow technicians to remove and replace the wheels without risking back injury by bending.  … Continue Reading

Avoid Stumbling Before You Get To The Merits Of A PTAB Appeal

In Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Technology, Inc., the Federal Circuit concluded that the PTAB’s practice of denying IPR institution on redundant grounds is appropriate.  The Court’s decision is important because it should counsel prospective petitioners to carefully select grounds on which to petition review and offer an explanation in the petition as to why multiple … Continue Reading

One Post-AIA Claim Risks PGR For All Claims

In its seventh PGR institution, the PTAB recently decided for the first time that a patent asserting a pre-AIA effective filing date was eligible for post-grant review because it contained at least one claim that was only entitled to a post-AIA effective filing date.  Although some claims were entitled to a pre-AIA effective filing date, … Continue Reading

Institution Decisions are Nonappealable. Settled? Maybe Not Yet.

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. § … Continue Reading

PTO Requests Congress Change AIA Proceedings

As required by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, the PTO issued a report to Congress in September  summarizing implementation of the AIA  in the four years since the Act went into effect. The report  proposes recommended changes to the law that the PTO would like to see enacted. A full copy of the report is … Continue Reading

IPO Annual Meeting Panel Spars Over Fairness of Current IPR System

Welcome to all of you who are new readers joining us from the IPO Annual Meeting (#IPOAM15). I hope that your time in Chicago was enjoyable and that you will add us to your RSS feeds or bookmark the blog and return often. For those who were unable to attend, the Tuesday panel titled “Post … Continue Reading

Petitioners Should Heed the PTAB’s Preference for Corroborated Witness Testimony

In its third PGR institution decision, the PTAB provided its first guidance regarding witness testimony to support a showing of prior public use or sale in PGRs.  The decision is a cautionary tale that the PTAB strongly prefers corroboration of witness testimony, much like the corroboration required during interference proceedings.  This is not a surprise, … Continue Reading

Put Away The Blunderbuss – Attention to Detail and Thoroughness Are Needed in Preparing an IPR Petition

Boehringer Ingelheim filed three petitions attacking patents generally drawn to methods of treating RA patients with rituximab.  The decisions on two of those petitions, i.e., IPR2015-00415 and IPR2015-00417, have been addressed elsewhere.  In IPR2015-00418, the PTAB declined to institute an IPR on the petition’s challenges to the lone claim of U.S. Patent No. 8,329,172, drawn … Continue Reading

Gamble At Your Own Risk – The Danger Of Petition Overkill

Boehringer Ingelheim filed the petition at issue in IPR2015-00417 concurrently with the petitions at issue in IPR2015-00415 and IPR2015-00418 to challenge patents protecting methodologies for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with rituximab, an FDA-approved antibody for treating certain cancers.  The IPR2015-00417 petition specifically challenged the fourteen claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,976,838, which are drawn to … Continue Reading

Grinning Patentees Get A Mulligan

Filed concurrently with the petitions at issue in IPR2015-00417 and IPR2015-00418, Boehringer Ingelheim filed the petition at issue in IPR2015-00415 seeking review of U.S. Patent No. 7,820,161 owned by Genentech and Biogen Idec.  The Board’s institution decision steadily whittled down Boehringer’s varied attacks on the patent.  Ultimately, IPR was granted on 2 of the 36 … Continue Reading

PTAB Review Reform in Bill Approved by Senate Committee

Late June 2, the Senate Judiciary Committee released a new version of its Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship (PATENT) Act, S. 1137.  In response to prodding by industry groups, the bill now includes reforms directed at preventing abuse of the Patent Office’s post-grant proceedings, IPRs and PGRs, against patent owners The bill is here.… Continue Reading
LexBlog