In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2016-1174 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 14, 2017), the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s construction of disputed claim terms, but did not resolve a dispute over whether the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard (BRI) or Phillips standard should apply when the challenged patent expires shortly after the PTAB issues its final written decision. Despite the correct claim construction, the court vacated the decision and remanded the case to the PTAB for reconsideration of the merits of its decision on obviousness.

Apple filed an IPR petition challenging claims of Personal Web’s patent directed to methods of locating data and controlling access to the data by giving a data file a substantially unique name that depends on the file’s content. In determining that the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness, the PTAB construed the claim term “content-based identifier” and related terms, applying the BRI standard.
Continue Reading What Claim Construction Standard Applies If a Patent Expires During IPR Appeal?

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

Work in progressOnce a trial has been instituted at the PTAB, a party seeking consideration of supplemental evidence may file a motion in accordance with the following requirements: (1) the request for the authorization to file a motion to submit supplemental information must be made within one month of the date the trial was instituted; and (2) the supplemental information must be relevant to a claim for which the trial was instituted.  37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a). Mere satisfaction of these requirements for filing a motion may not, however, be sufficient to convince the PTAB to grant the motion. Instead, in deciding the motion, the PTAB will use its broad discretion to determine if the proffered supplemental evidence will assist the PTAB in “ensur[ing] efficient administration of the Office and the ability of the Office to complete [trial] proceedings in a timely manner.” See Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 445 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and our discussions here and here.
Continue Reading Your Supplemental Evidence is Timely, but is it Relevant to a Claim at Issue? PTAB Will Decide.

Tiny man holding wooden gavel on white background with copy space. Law concept. 3D Rendering

In Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc., No. 2016-1544 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2017), the Federal Circuit dismissed, for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution, a petitioner-appellant’s (Phigenix) appeal of a PTAB final written decision that refused to cancel claims challenged in an IPR. The court’s decision demonstrates that statutory right of appeal from a PTAB final written decision in an inter partes review does not necessarily establish Article III standing for the appeal.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Dismisses Appeal where IPR Petitioner Lacked Standing to Appeal

In recent non-precedential decisions, Micrografx, LLC v. Google Inc., Case No. 2015-2090 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 29, 2016) (Micrografx I) and Micrografx, LLC v. Google Inc. (Micrografx II), Case No. 2015-2091 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 29, 2016), the Federal Circuit upheld three IPR final written decisions canceling challenged claims of Micrografx patents for anticipation, and denying a motion to amend claims. The court determined that any errors in claim construction were harmless, and that substantial evidence supported the PTAB’s findings of anticipation.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Upholds Cancellation of Micrografx Patent Claims for Anticipation

Diploma IconThe Patent and Trial Appeal Board dismissed petitions for inter partes review challenging the claims of a patent owned by a state university that had neither waived the protections offered it by the Eleventh Amendment nor consented to the trial.  Covidien LP v. University of Florida Research Foundation Inc., IPR2016-01274, -01275, -01276 (PTAB Jan. 25, 2017).  Covidien LP filed three IPR petitions seeking review of U.S. Patent No. 7,062,251, which is owned by the University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. (UFRF).  In response, UFRF filed a motion to dismiss these petitions on the basis that UFRF is immune from being brought before the Board to adjudicate Covidien’s petitions.  In dismissing the petitions, the Board applied Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent to determine that USRF is an arm of the State of Florida and is thus entitled to invoke sovereign immunity to bar institution of an IPR. 
Continue Reading Sovereign Immunity Protects State University Owned Patent from Inter Partes Review

Phenylephrine Hydrochloride (resized)The first final written decision in a post-grant review of a patent arising from Art Unit 1600 issued November 14, 2016, in Altaire Pharm. Inc.. v. Paragon Bioteck, Inc., PGR2015-00011.  PGRs allow challenge based on enablement, written description, indefiniteness, and subject matter eligibility, in addition to the novelty and obviousness bases available in IPRs, permitting petitioners to rely on arguments commonly used to invalidate biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents in litigation.  Here, however, the PTAB instituted PGR based only on obviousness grounds, and ultimately determined that the petitioner did not meet its burden in proving the unpatentability of the challenged claims.
Continue Reading PTAB Issues First Biotech/Pharma Post-Grant Review Final Written Decision – All Claims Survive

Form Over FunctionIs there a difference between saying that it would be intuitive to use the features of one prior art reference in combination with another, versus saying that such a combination merely uses a prior art element for its established function? According to two recent decisions, the Federal Circuit apparently thinks so.

In In re: Van Os, Case No. 2015-1975 (January 3, 2017), the Court reversed and remanded the Board’s finding of obviousness, rejecting the Board’s conclusion that the combination of prior art references would have been “intuitive.” The case concerned an appeal of the Board’s decision to sustain the patent examiner’s rejection of Apple’s U.S. Patent Application No. 12/364,470 directed to a touchscreen interface in a portable electronic device that allowed a user to rearrange icons on a display.
Continue Reading Intuitive to Use Versus Use of an Element for its Intended Purpose – Is There a Difference?

Business strategy businessman planning and finding a solution through a drawing of a labyrinth maze

The saga of Enfish v. Microsoft continues.  The Enfish litigation provides a textbook example of the multi-pronged defense now common with the advent of post-grant review and the evolving law concerning unpatentable subject matter.  Many are no doubt aware of the significant Federal Circuit decision on patentable subject matter (i.e. Section 101) which this litigation spawned.  Less familiar are the parallel developments in the PTAB.  Most recently, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s determination that some, but not all, of the claims of the asserted patents were invalid in light of prior art.  Microsoft Corp.v. Enfish, LLC, No. 2015-1734 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 30, 2016) (non-precedential).
Continue Reading One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Enfish: Unraveling the Maze of Parallel Court/PTAB Proceedings

Green Traffic Lights against Blue Sky Backgrounds with clipping path

Recently, the Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey allowed Purdue Pharma to assert invalidity arguments in the litigation that were previously submitted in an IPR petition, but upon which IPR review was not instituted. See Depomed Inc. v Purdue Pharma LP, Civil Action 13-571, Order (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 2016). The Court rejected the patent owner’s arguments that Section 315(e) of Title 35 estopped Purdue from raising these argument.
Continue Reading Purdue Not Estopped From Raising Invalidity Contentions at Trial That Were Submitted But Not Instituted During IPR

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.