Section 112

Subscribe to Section 112

The PTAB’s final written decision in Inguran, LLC d/b/a Sexing Techs. v. Premium Genetics (UK) LTD., Case PGR2015-00017, Paper 22 (PTAB 2016), illustrates what a Patent Owner must do to demonstrate that a challenged claim is entitled to an earlier effective filing date in an AIA trial.

The PGR involved U.S. Patent 8,933,395, which issued from an application filed on January 31, 2014, that was a continuation of pre-AIA patent applications filed before March 15, 2013, with the same text as those prior applications. As we explained in our prior post, the PTAB instituted PGR of claims 1-14, despite the patent’s claimed pre-AIA effective filing date. The PTAB found, at that institution phase, that claim 2 of the patent was only entitled to a post-AIA effective filing date and, thus, the entire patent and all of its challenged claims were eligible for PGR.  The PTAB instituted review on multiple grounds, including anticipation by each of Mueth, Frontin-Rollet, and Durack.
Continue Reading To Establish Entitlement to an Earlier Effective Filing Date, Every Claim Limitation Must be Addressed

Petitioners are finding themselves caught in a Catch-22.  The PTAB declares claims too indefinite under Section 112 to construe, but then declines to address the patentabilty of the claims.  Section 112 deficiencies are not grounds to challenge a patent in an IPR, but the PTAB has authority to find such deficiencies.

Recently, the PTAB decided that only some claims of Immersion Corporation’s U.S. Patent No. 8,659,571 were challengeable by Apple Inc. in an IPR because the ‘571 patent failed to disclose sufficient structure corresponding to the “drive module limitation” recited in claim 12 to determine the scope and meaning of claim 12.  Apple Inc., v. Immersion Corporation, IPR2016-01372, Paper 7 (January 11, 2017).
Continue Reading PTAB Declines to Institute IPR on Immersion’s Indefinite Means Plus Function Claims

To date, only 43 petitions for Post-Grant Review have been filed with the PTAB.  Nine PGR petitions (21% of total petitions) have been filed to challenge patents arising from Art Unit 1600, which examines applications directed to biotechnology and organic chemistry subject matter.  The PTAB recently instituted the third ever PGR for a biotech-related patent in B.R.A.H.M.S. Gmbh v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., PGR2016-00018.

The petitioner requested PGR of claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,091,698, directed to a method for the advanced detection of sepsis in a systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS)-positive subject involving measuring procalcitonin levels and one or more clinical markers over multiple time points, wherein an increase in the amount of procalcitonin from a previous amount over a 24-hour interval detects sepsis. 
Continue Reading PTAB Institutes Third Biotech/Pharma Post-Grant Review

Route 22 signA pair of recent decisions, one from a federal district court and another from the PTAB, highlight the potential of inconsistent results regarding patent validity. In Microwave Vision, S.A. v. ETS-Lindgren Inc., Civ. Action No. 1:14-CV-1153-SCJ (D. Ga. Sept. 20, 2016), the court denied an accused infringer’s (ETS’s) motion for summary judgment of invalidity, after addressing and ultimately disagreeing with the Board’s analysis of the patent in a parallel IPR. The Board opined, but did not decide, that the same patent claims may be invalid for indefiniteness and decided not to institute an IPR. This seemingly places a patent challenger in a Catch 22 position insofar as the Board won’t institute IPR to address prior art patentability because it cannot construe the claim, yet the court won’t conclude the claim is indefinite because it disagrees with the Board.
Continue Reading District Court Rejects Indefiniteness Argument Despite No Findings

disclaimer printed on rubber stamp

The Patent and Trial Appeal Board invoked the doctrine of prosecution history disclaimer to construe the claims at issue narrowly for the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 5,884,033; and thus, concluding that the claims had not been shown to be unpatentable in light of prior art. The Board rejected the Petitioner’s additional arguments that the claims as construed were not adequately described in the specification. The Board noted that it was not proper for it to consider whether the claims as construed were valid under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph.
Continue Reading No Written Description, No Problem when Prosecution History Disclaimer is Applied

Victory comes if you are lucky on dices

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 a rather common means to challenge a competitor’s patent. However, post grant review is gaining in popularity among litigants, adding to the available strategies of overcoming potential barriers to market entry for companies.  For example, while 12 Petitions for PGR were filed in all of 2015, 15 have been filed so far in the first half of 2016. 
Continue Reading The Three-Front Assault: PeroxyChem Uses IPR, PGR and District Court to Challenge Opponent

A businessman panics after realizing he's painted himself into a corner.

The PTAB has continued the trend of pushing the -“antibody exception” to written description into an ever-smaller corner. Claims to methods of using antibodies that bind Siglec-15 to impair osteoclast differentiation and inhibit bone resorption were deprived of priority because the parent application failed to disclose the “antigenic regions useful for generating antibodies having the desired functional properties.” Consequently, the claims were anticipated by the cited reference under 35 U.S.C. §102(a), and Patentee’s other evidence of prior conception, diligence and reduction to practice was insufficient to antedate the reference. Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. v. Alethia Biotherapeutics, Inc., IPR2015-00291 (Paper No. 75, June 14, 2016) (final written decision).
Continue Reading Squeezing the ‘Antibody Exception’ to Written Description into a Corner

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.  By all accounts, Shinn Fu mounted a strong attack against all claims in the ‘897 patent, and the PTAB instituted review.  Foregoing a dogged defense of the granted claims, Tire Hanger maintained a clear head and responded to the petition by filing a contingent motion to amend the claims rather than a Patent Owner Response. 
Continue Reading PTAB Grants Motion to Amend Claims

The transitional program for covered business method (CBM) patents is a review proceeding administered by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to reconsider the patentability of one or more claims in a CBM patent. Uphill BattlePetitioners seeking CBM review have enjoyed good success in knocking out claims for reciting subject matter ineligible for a patent. They have not, however, enjoyed similar success when challenging claims under 35 USC § 112 (concerning clarity, enablement, or written description).
Continue Reading Petitioners Are Not Faring Well on 112-challenges in CBM Review

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.