[url=file_closeup.php?id=84174875] [img]file_thumbview_approve/84174875/2/[/img] [url=file_closeup.php?id=62711664] [img]file_thumbview_approve/62711664/2/[/img] [url=file_closeup.php?id=59795748] [img]file_thumbview_approve/59795748/2/[/img] [url=file_closeup.php?id=21984986] [img]file_thumbview_approve/21984986/2/[/img] [url=file_closeup.php?id=41886470] [img]file_thumbview_approve/41886470/2/[/img] [url=file_closeup.php?id=41880126] [img]file_thumbview_approve/41880126/2/[/img] [url=file_closeup.php?id=41882644] [img]file_thumbview_approve/41882644/2/[/img] [url=/search/lightbox/5542306] - the Capitol LB - [img]/file_thumbview_approve/6581839/2/[/img]

In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, the Supreme Court recognized that a “district court may find a patent claim to be valid, and the agency may later cancel that claim in its own review.”  The Court also recognized that because of the different evidentiary burdens in court versus before the agency—the Patent Office—“the possibility of inconsistent results is inherent to Congress’[s] regulatory design.” Is that inconsistency sensible? As good a case as any to consider that question involves a global pharmaceutical company, one of its top-selling drug products, and a patent it owns that covers the administration of that drug product.
Continue Reading The Possibility of Inconsistent Results Inherent to Congress’s Design of AIA Trial Reviews

Portrait of a young businessman with finger on his lips

On July 1, 2016, The Board awarded attorneys’ fees as a sanction for failure to comply with an agreed protective order. RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time, LLC, IPR2015-01750, IPR2015-01751, IPR2015-01752 (PTAB July 1, 2016). In these IPRs, the patent owner (AIT) disclosed the petitioner’s (RPX’s) confidential information to its president, an attorney representing it in a district court case to which RPX is not a party, and to the CFO of a non-practicing patent licensing company serving as an advisor to AIT. In its order allowing RPX to seek attorneys’ fees, the Board emphasized the importance of promoting respect for and meticulous observance of protective orders.
Continue Reading Shhh, It’s a Secret: Failure to Maintain Confidentiality Can Be Costly

Vancouver, Canada - December 15, 2013: A Lego toy of Gandalf, the Wizard from The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. Gandalf is a member of the order of the Istari and one of the Maiar of Valinor. He lends counsel and leadership to Bilbo Baggins, the Fellowship of the Ring and the people of Middle Earth.

On July 6, 2016, the PTAB cancelled claims in a patent which had bedeviled more than 250 named defendants in litigation dating back to 2008.  The list of defendants reads like a Who’s Who of financial and commercial businesses, including the nation’s most prominent banks, credit card companies, online stock traders, e-Commerce retailers, cable and telecommunications companies, airlines, and even all twelve of the nation’s Federal Reserve banks.  Any plans the patent owner had to continue its siege of these vast tracts of economic activity were brought to a halt by the PTAB’s final written decision in MasterCard International, Inc. v. Stambler, Case CBM2015-00044, Paper 32 (PTAB 2016), which found that the petitioner, MasterCard, had proven the challenged claims were anticipated by and/or obvious over prior art.
Continue Reading PTAB Finds Motivation to Combine References, but Cancellation Comes Too Late for More than 200 Defendants

Granted v2We previously reported the May 9, 2016, Patent Office’s study that the PTAB rarely grants motions to amend.  There, we explained that patent owners rarely file motions to amend and, even when such motions are filed, the PTAB rarely grants such motions. Last week, in Google Inc. and Apple Inc., v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., Case CBM2015-00040, Paper 8 (PTAB June 21, 2016), the PTAB granted a Patent Owner’s motion to amend. This case is thus a rare example of the PTAB’s willingness to grant a motion to amend when the Patent Owner provides detailed arguments evidencing why a proposed, substitute claim is patentable over the “prior art known to the patent owner.”
Continue Reading “It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane, NO it’s a Granted Motion to Amend.”

US Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, VA.

On June 30, 2016, lead APJ Jacqueline Wright Bonilla provided a status report on Inter Partes Review/Post Grant Review in the Biotechnology and Chemical Technology Center 1600 during the Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership (BCP) Conference.  The statistics discussed during this BCP Conference are current as of May 31, 2016. 
Continue Reading Status Report on IPR Statistics for the Biotech/Pharma Technology Center

The AIA provides for the post-grant review of “covered business method patents,” which are defined as:

a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.

AIA §18(d)(1). The PTAB was left to its own devices in the absence of meaningful legislative history to address how broadly this language should be read.
Continue Reading PTAB Standard for Qualifying CBM Patent Reviews is Now Set

Dollar SignsIf a patented mobile phone app can locate a nearby ATM machine, are the claims of that patent subject to CBM review because ATMs are used in financial transactions? What if the claim could cover a business entity that, incidentally, might also push advertisements to a mobile phone? Is it enough that a claim is merely “incidental to” a financial product or service, or, must a claim actually require that something be used to practice, administer, or manage a financial product or service? These are central questions currently under consideration at the CAFC in Unwired Planet LLC v. Google Inc., Nos. 15-1810 and 15-1812 (audio recordings). The PTAB found these facts sufficiently supported CBM review.  However, during recent oral arguments on appeal, the judges of the CAFC panel seemed skeptical, focusing on the text of the underlying statute and its implementing rules.
Continue Reading For CBM Standing, Is “Incidental To” a Financial Product or Service Enough?

On June 30, 2016, lead APJ Jacqueline Wright Bonilla provided an overview of the new PTAB rules during the Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership (BCP) Conference.  The final rule on Amendments to the Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which we have previously discussed [April 21, 2016 and August 20, 2015] was published on April 1, 2016, and was later revised in a correction to the final rule on April 27, 2016.  APJ Bonilla commented on the new rules relating to the standard for claim construction, preliminary responses by the patent owner, including testimonial evidence, word count, Rule 11-type certification, and motions for sanctions. 
Continue Reading An Overview of Amendments to the PTAB Rules

stamp denied with red text on whiteWe previously reported on the Federal Circuit’s decision that neither the AIA nor the Constitution precludes the same PTAB panel from rendering both institution and final decisions in Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Coviden LP, No. 2014-1771 (Fed. Cir. 2016).  Last week, in a 10-1 decision, the Federal Circuit denied Ethicon’s petition for rehearing en banc.
Continue Reading En Banc Rehearing Petition Denied – PTAB Retains Authority to Institute IPR and Issue Final Decision

Front facade of the US Supreme Court building in Washington DC. Words "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW" are clearly visible right above the columns. Vivid blue sky with clouds is in background.

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).”

**********

An updated discussion of this issue is available here: Federal Circuit to Take AIA Time Bar Issue En Banc

Original Post: In a non-precedential decision late last year, the Federal Circuit dismissed a patent owner’s appeal of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision that refused to apply a statutory time-bar to deny institution of an inter partes review proceeding. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Oracle Corp., 622 Fed. Appx. 907 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (per curiam). The court relied on the “No Appeal” provision in 35 USC § 314(d), which states that the “determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.”
Continue Reading Supreme Court Vacates Federal Circuit Decision that Refused to Review PTAB’s Application of the Time Bar to AIA Trials

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.