Trial Procedures

Subscribe to Trial Procedures via RSS

On June 7, 2018, the Federal Circuit in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp. requested that intervenor, Patent Office director Andrei Iancu, and appellee Broadcom, file a response to Wi-Fi One’s second petition for rehearing.  Wi-Fi One, Case No. 2015-1944, Docket No. 212 (June 7, 2018).  At issue was whether the court should grant Wi-Fi One’s second petition for panel or en banc rehearing regarding 35 U.S.C. § 315 (b) time-bar challenges.  See Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., Case No. 2015-1944, Doc. No. 210 (May 21, 2018).
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Requests Briefing from Patent Office Regarding § 315(b) Time-Bar Determinations

Left in the wake of the Supreme Court’s SAS decision (discussed here) are a number of appeals pending before the Federal Circuit concerning Patent Trial and Appeal Board final written decisions in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings administered on a subset of claims and grounds presented in the IPR petition. While litigants before the Board scramble to reassess strategies, the Board itself has been offering guidance, including its publication on June 5 of an updated FAQ on how it will administer pending IPRs and decide petitions pending when the Court decided SAS. As for pending appeals, the Federal Circuit explained that it has jurisdiction to address appeals of PTAB final written decisions that have “SAS transition issues.” PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, Appeals 2016-2470, -2472, -2474, Slip Op. at 9–11 (Fed. Cir. June 7, 2018). And the court further explained that future appellants will need to request relief regarding those issues, as the court will not act sua sponte. Id. at 11–13.
Continue Reading No SAS-based Relief on Appeal, Unless Requested

IPR and Estoppel after SAS Institute - All or Nothing

The Supreme Court held on April 24, 2018 that if the Patent Office institutes and inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, it must issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of every patent claim challenged by the petitioner. SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, (discussed in greater detail here). Within days, the Patent Office issued Guidance on the impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings explaining the procedures it intends to implement in view of the Court’s decision. The resulting changes are likely to be extensive, both in IPR practice and in the scope of estoppel that litigations in parallel proceedings will need to consider.
Continue Reading IPR and Estoppel after SAS Institute

The Patent Office today issued a press release of its notice of proposed rulemaking that would replace the broadest reasonable interpretation standard the Patent Trial and Appeal Board applies to construe unexpired patent claims and proposed substitute (amended) claims in AIA trial proceedings with the Phillips standard applied in patent cases before federal district courts and the International Trade Commission (ITC). The Office also proposes to amend the rules “to add that the Office will consider any prior claim construction determination concerning a term of the involved claim in a civil action, or an ITC proceeding, that is timely made of record in an [AIA trial] proceeding.” Any proposed changes adopted in a final rule would be applied retroactively to pending AIA trials.
Continue Reading Patent Office Proposes to Jettison BRI in AIA Trials

On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, holding that if the Patent Office institutes an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, it must issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of every patent claim challenged by the petitioner. The Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s judgment, which upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) common practice of instituting review on some, but not all challenged claims, and then issuing a final written decision addressing only the claims for which review was instituted.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Decides that IPR Final Decisions Must Address All Challenged Claims

Fighting a war on two fronts is rarely an enviable strategic position. While district court judges do not always grant stays of patent infringement cases until resolution of co-pending inter partes reviews (IPR’s), accused infringers considering whether to request a stay of litigation should note the PTAB’s February 28, 2018, Order in Becton, Dickinson and Company v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, -01587, -01588, -01589, and -01590. 
Continue Reading Should I Stay or Should I Go? – Co-Pending IPR and Litigation Can Lead to Discovery Obligations

In Knowles Electronics LLC v. Cirrus Logic, Inc., No. 2016-2010 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB decision that upheld an examiner’s rejection of claims for anticipation in an inter partes reexamination (IPX). The same claims had earlier been challenged, and determined to be not invalid (over different prior art), in an ITC decision that was also affirmed by the Federal Circuit. MEMS Tech. Berhad v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 447 F. App’x 142 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The decision in the IPX appeal turned on construction of a particular claim term (“package”), and according to a dissent authored by Judge Newman, the court should have reversed the PTAB’s decision due to claim preclusion, because the court had earlier construed the same term differently.
Continue Reading Is the PTAB Bound by a Prior Federal Circuit Claim Construction?

In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 2017-1239 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s entry of adverse judgment against Patent Owner Arthrex, before instituting inter partes review. Specifically, the PTAB entered judgment after Arthrex had disclaimed all challenged claims, but before the PTAB decided whether to institute a trial. As a result of the PTAB’s adverse judgment, the Patent Owner is estopped, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(1), from obtaining another claim in a continuation application, for example, that is “not patentably distinct” from a canceled claim. Estoppel would not have applied if the PTAB would have instead decided not to institute the IPR.
Continue Reading Patent Owner Estoppel May Apply When Patent Owner Cancels Claims Before IPR Institution

Update: On June 10, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a decision, 6-3, reversing the Federal Circuit’s judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings. The Court held that “a federal agency is not a ‘person’ who may petition for post-issuance review under the AIA.” On August 9, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued an order vacating the PTAB’s decision and remanding with instructions that the PTAB dismiss the CBM proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.

PTABWatch Takeaway: When “sued for infringement” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), the United States has standing to petition the Patent Office to institute Covered Business Method (CBM) review.  Return Mail v. U.S. Postal Service, Appeal 2016-1502 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2017)

Background

Patentee, Return Mail, Inc., filed suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Court alleging that the United States, through the actions of the United States Postal Service, used without license the subject matter claimed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,826,548.
Continue Reading The United States Can Have Standing in AIA Proceedings

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.