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

Closeup businessman working with generic design notebook. Online payments, hands keyboard. Blurred background, film effect

The Federal Circuit recently vacated PTAB final written decisions that rested on a claim construction contradicted by the patent’s prosecution history. Specifically, in D’Agostino v. Mastercard Int’l Inc., No. 2016-1592, 2016-1593 (Fed. Cir. December 22, 2016), the court vacated the Board’s IPR decisions of unpatentability of method claims in two patents directed to processes for generating limited-use transaction codes to be given to a merchant by a customer for the purchase of goods and services.  The court determined that the Board’s decisions rested on an unreasonable claim interpretation of a “single-merchant” claim limitation, noting that, contrary to the Board’s claim interpretation, “[t]he prosecution history reinforces the evident meaning of the single-merchant limitation as requiring limiting, to one, the number of merchants that may use the transaction code, without identifying the merchant.” The court’s decision serves as a good example of how the prosecution history may aid a patentee in defending against patentability challenges in AIA trials.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Vacates Board’s Decision Cancelling Method Claims

The Federal Circuit has once again vacated and remanded a PTAB decision on the basis that the PTAB did not adequately explain its reasons for finding a claimed invention obvious, but this time in the context of an appeal decision affirming an examiner’s rejection of pending claims.

In In re: Marcel Van Os et al., Appeal No. 2015-1975 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 3, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s affirmance, on appeal, of the examiner’s rejection of claims 38-41 of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/364,470 (“the 470 application”) as being obvious over U.S. Patent No. 7,231,229 (“Hawkins”) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0191059 (“Gillespie”).
Continue Reading Federal Circuit to PTAB (Once Again) – Explain Yourself!!!

"Gavel on copy of escrow agreement, soft shadow. White background, soft shadow. Gavel has seen much use. Please see more gavel photos:"An updated discussion of this issue is available here: PTAB’s Time Bar Determinations Are Reviewable by the Federal Circuit

As we had predicted in a previous post, the Federal Circuit, on January 4, 2017, granted patent owner Wi-Fi One LLC’s petitions for rehearing en banc regarding the interpretation of, and interplay between, 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) (the No Appeal provision) and § 315(b) (the Time Bar provision).  A few months ago, we wrote about the related decision Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., Appeal 2015-1944 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 16, 2016), which the court’s order vacates:

In Wi­Fi, the patent owner (Wi­Fi One, LLC) argued that the IPR petitioner (Broadcom Corporation) was in privity with entities accused (and eventually adjudged) in parallel district court litigation of infringing the challenged patent. Those entities, the patent owner argued, would have been time­barred from seeking IPR under 35 USC § 315(b).
Continue Reading Federal Circuit to take AIA Time Bar issue En Banc

Obstruct_Don't Stop

Update (Jan. 13, 2017): The Delaware district court issued a short order on Jan. 11, 2017, maintaining the court’s earlier decision discussed in the post below.

An AIA trial is a relatively-inexpensive, partial substitute for challenging the validity of a patent. Yet, prospective AIA trial petitioners routinely struggle with the potential estoppel effect of not raising prior art before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Petitioners concerned about that issue may be encouraged by a recent Delaware district court decision interpreting the statutory estoppel provision and a 2016 Federal Circuit decision not to prevent an AIA trial petitioner from pursuing in court an invalidity argument based on prior art that the petitioner did not raise—but one might have thought reasonably could have raised—during the concluded AIA trial of the same patent-in-suit. The decision appears to render null an important phrase in that statutory provision. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Toshiba Corp., Civil Action No. 13-453, Slip Op. (DN 559) at 25–27 (D. Del. Dec. 19, 2016) (Memorandum Opinion).
Continue Reading District Court Interprets the IPR Estoppel Provision Narrowly

In Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit reviewed the final written decisions in CBM reviews of three related patents owned by Ameranth, Inc., directed to computerized systems for generating and displaying menus for use in the restaurant industry.  The court determined that the PTAB properly construed all disputed claim terms, determined that the patents are CBM patents, and determined that most challenged claims were unpatentable under § 101, but that the PTAB erred in concluding that some dependent claims were not unpatentable under § 101.

More specifically, the claims in the disputed Ameranth patents are directed to a “first menu that has categories and items, and software that can generate a second menu from the first menu by allowing categories and items to be selected.” 
Continue Reading PTAB Should Have Canceled All Challenged Claims in CBM Reviews

Red seal and imprint "SANCTIONS" on white surface

On November 10, 2016, the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) hosted a panel discussion entitled Ethics in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings at the PTAB with the Honorable Thomas Giannetti, Lead Administrative Patent Judge of the PTAB.

The main topic of the discussion was guidance on motions for sanctions.  The rules relating to trial practice before the PTAB allow the Board to impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, registered practitioner or party that violates the PTAB’s rules after the offending party has had an opportunity to respond.  35 C.F.R. §42.11(d)(1).  The Board has the authority to sanction parties or a party may file a motion for the Board to impose sanctions. 
Continue Reading Guidance on Requesting Motions for Sanctions

businessman between a rock and a hard space

The Federal Circuit has once again vacated and remanded a PTAB final written decision on the basis that the PTAB did not adequately explain its reasons for finding a claimed invention obvious.  In In re Nuvasive, Appeal No. 15-1670 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2016), the Federal Circuit reviewed the PTAB’s final written decision in IPR2013-00506 that concluded various claims of  NuVasive, Inc’s U.S. Patent No. 8,361,156 were invalid as obvious over a combination of prior art references.  The patent claims spinal fusion implants, and were challenged by Medtronic Inc.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit to PTAB (Again) – Explain Yourself!!

"Gavel on copy of escrow agreement, soft shadow. White background, soft shadow. Gavel has seen much use. Please see more gavel photos:"

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).”

**********

On January 19, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued an order vacating the decision discussed in the post below and reinstating the appeal for reconsideration in view of the court’s en banc decision in Wi-Fi One LLC v. Broadcom Corporation, which we discuss here. A new decision on the merits may be expected later in 2018.

Original Post: In Click-to-Call Techs. v. Oracle Corp., Appeal 15-1242 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 17, 2016) (non-prec.), on remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration in view of Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) (as we discussed here), the Federal Circuit again dismissed the patent owner’s (Click-to-Call’s) appeal, concluding that the court lacks jurisdiction to review a decision by the PTAB to institute an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition over a patent owner’s objections that the IPR petition is time barred.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Dismisses Appeal Based on AIA Time Bar, But Two Judges Call for En Banc Review

Digital Billboard (12-6-16 Post)Galaxia Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Revolution Display, LLC, PGR2016-00021, Galaxia sought post-grant review of Revolution’s U.S. Design Patent No. D736,750, entitled “Modular Video Support Frame Member.” The patented design was directed to a support frame for video monitors used in large-scale LED video image displays, such as those used on-stage at rock concerts, on the sides of buildings, or at amusement parks.  Galaxia sought cancellation of the claimed design on grounds of non-joinder of proper inventors, and lack of ornamentality under 35 U.S.C. § 171.  On November 2, 2016, the PTAB denied institution of the PGR. 
Continue Reading It All Depends On How You Frame It

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.