“Inurement,” \i-ˈnu̇r-mənt, -ˈnyu̇r\ noun :in patent law the concept that the action of another may inure to one’s benefit, esp. where the actions of another in reducing an invention to practice may be attributed to the named inventor for purposes of establishing priority of invention.
Continue Reading Breadcrumbs Lead Federal Circuit to “Inurement”
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
PTABWatch Takeaway: Sovereign immunity is not available to dismiss an IPR challenge where the Patent Owner has filed an infringement action against the Petitioner. Ericsson v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, IPR2017-01186, -01197, -01200, -01213, -01214, and -01219 (Dec. 19, 2017).
The Eleventh Amendment was rarely mentioned in the same breath as patent law until last year, which began with the Board’s decision in Covidien LP v. University of Florida Research Foundation Inc., IPR2016-01274, -01275, -01276 (Jan. 25, 2017), discussed here. In Covidien, the Board dismissed petitions for IPR challenging the claims of a patent owned by the University of Florida Research Foundation, determining that the university is an arm of the state and entitled to invoke sovereign immunity to bar IPR institution. Sovereign immunity does not shield against any and all challenges, however. In Reactive Surfaces Ltd., LLP v. Toyota Motor Corp., Case No. IPR2017-00572 (July 13, 2017), discussed here, the Board acknowledged that sovereign immunity may be asserted by a state university in an IPR, but held that an IPR may continue against a non-sovereign co-owner of the challenged patent.
Continue Reading PTAB Defines Further Limitation to Sovereign Immunity Defense
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).”
**********
Original Post: In Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corporation, an en banc panel of the Federal Circuit decided on January 8, 2018, that the PTAB’s application of the 35 U.S.C § 315(b) time bar to institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings is reviewable on appeal. The decision overrules Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 803 F.3d 652 (Fed. Cir. 2015), which held to the contrary.
Continue Reading PTAB’s Time Bar Determinations Are Reviewable by the Federal Circuit
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
Last fall, the Federal Circuit reversed a PTAB decision that affirmed an Examiner’s rejection of various claims in an ex parte reexamination because the Examiner’s interpretation of the claims, which the PTAB upheld, was unreasonably broad. In re Smith International, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-2303 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 26, 2017). The court’s decision is noteworthy because it reinforces the bounds of the broadest reasonable interpretation claim construction standard the Patent Office must apply when assessing patentability, bounds that do not encompass the broadest possible interpretation.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Again Reminds PTAB that BRI Must Be Reasonable
In CRFD Research Ltd. v. Matal, No. 2016-2198 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 5, 2017), the Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB erred in its obviousness analysis, in part by failing to consider an argument the IPR petitioner made in a ground that the PTAB determined was “redundant” to the instituted grounds.
Petitioner Hulu, LLC, challenged claims of CRFD Research Ltd.’s patent directed to methods of transferring an ongoing software-based session from one device to another, allowing the user to begin a session on one device, such as a cell phone, and then transferring the session to another device, such as a laptop computer.
Continue Reading PTAB Should Have Considered Argument Raised in “Redundant,” Non-instituted Ground
In Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC, No. 2016-1706 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded multiple IPR decisions where the PTAB failed to consider material evidence and failed to explain its decisions to exclude the evidence.
Ultratec and CaptionCall are currently litigating in both district court and before the PTAB. Ultratec sued CaptionCall for infringement in the Western District of Wisconsin where a jury found the patents infringed and not invalid.
Continue Reading CAFC: PTAB Abused Its Discretion When It Refused to Admit Expert’s Trial Testimony
The PTAB’s Chief Administrative Patent Judge issued a memorandum on November 21, 2017, providing guidance on motions to amend in view of the en banc decision of the Federal Circuit in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (discussed here and here). The court in Aqua Products determined that the Board could not the place burden of persuasion with respect to the patentability of substitute claims on the patent owner. The memorandum stated that the Board will determine whether substitute claims submitted in a motion to amend compliant with 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence based on the entirety of the record, including any opposition made by the petitioner.
Continue Reading Board Issues Guidance on Motions to Amend in View of Aqua Products
In Novartis AG v. Noven Pharm. Inc., Appeal 2016-1678-1679 (April 2017), Novartis appealed two PTAB decisions holding claims of two patents obvious over cited prior art (IPR2014-00549 and IPR2014-00550), arguing that previous judicial holdings of non-obviousness should control the PTAB’s factual findings and that the claims should have been held non-obvious.
The two Novartis patents at issue (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,316,023 and 6,335,031) were from the same patent family and are directed to a pharmaceutical composition comprising rivastigmine (Exelon®) and an antioxidant for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease.
Continue Reading PTAB Not Always Bound By Previous Court Decisions Regarding Patent Validity