Know the RulesRevised rules for PTAB trials, which were published for comment in August 2015, have now been finalized and will be effective for all petitions filed on or after May 2, 2016.

As we previously reported, the new rules clarify procedures for addressing when the PTAB will apply a Phillips-type claim construction for patents that may expire before a final written decision is issued; substitute word count limits for briefs instead of page limits; incorporate a Rule 11-like certification for papers submitted to the PTAB, and revise the time period for exchange of demonstrative exhibits prior to final hearing.
Continue Reading New Rules Permit Testimony in Support of Preliminary Response

Ounce of PreventionOn April 8, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado overturned a jury’s finding that defendant’s infringement was willful, relying in part on the fact that the PTAB had elected to institute inter partes review of one of the asserted patents. We have previously reported on a number of District Court decisions that have addressed whether, and in what circumstances, the denial of an IPR petition may serve as evidence.  The Colorado court’s decision appears to be the first to rely upon evidence that the PTAB instituted review to conclude, as a matter of law, that a defendant’s defenses were “objectively reasonable.”
Continue Reading The PTAB Vaccine: Institution of IPR Protects Against Willfulness Claim

This Blog previously highlighted the risks involved when a petitioner does not submit an expert declaration with their petition.  This risk may be lessened where the “the invention and prior art references are directed to relatively straightforward and easily understandable technology.” [Paper No. 41 at 17 n.6 of IPR2014-00169] (ruling in favor of petitioner despite its failure to present expert declaration until its Reply brief).  However, a petitioner should strongly consider submitting an expert declaration to support their arguments in technology areas that are considered complex. 
Continue Reading It’s Complicated: PTAB Reinforces Notion That Petitioners Should Consider Expert Testimony in Complex Technology Areas

Geometric Shapes BlackboardIn Pride Mobility Prods. Corp. v. Permobil, Inc., the Federal Circuit partially affirmed the PTAB’s decision cancelling claims in two Pride Mobility Products wheelchair patents.  Disagreeing with the Board’s conclusions as to one of the canceled claims, the Federal Circuit concluded that the Board’s claim construction of “substantially planar” and “oriented perpendicular” did not make any “ordinary geometric sense.”  In reversing the Board’s decision with respect to this single claim, the Federal Circuit gave the Board a much-needed refresher in geometry.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Gives a Geometry Lesson when Correcting the PTAB’s Claim Construction

Child thinking with Pros and Cons on a blackboard concept for choice, for and against, confusion, inspiration and solution

The Federal Circuit recently confirmed the Board’s interpretation that § 315(e) estoppel does not take effect with respect to prior art that the Board declines to address as redundant. In two recent cases, Shaw Industries Group v. Automated Creel Sys., Nos. 15-1116, 15-1119, __ F.3d __, at*6-9 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 23, 2016) and HP, Inc. v. MPHJ Tech. Invs., No. 2015-1427, __ F.3d __, at *13 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 5, 2016) the court held that “the noninstituted grounds do not become a part of the IPR” and, thus, estoppel does not apply to those grounds in a subsequent court or Board proceeding.Continue Reading Without Estoppel, Are Redundant Grounds Now a Petitioner’s Friend?

The PTAB’s final written decision in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., IPR2014-01093, should serve as a reminder to Petitioners challenging claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) – take care to establish that your reference is prior art. 
Continue Reading Failure to Establish Published U.S. Application is Prior Art Dooms IPR under Dynamic Drinkware

this way_that wayNRT Technology Corporation was not successful in petitioning the PTAB to institute CBM review of U.S. Patent No. 6,081,792, but was successful in moving a district court to dismiss an infringement action concerning the same patent on the basis that the patent claims ineligible (abstract) subject matter. Global Cash Access, Inc. v. NRT Tech. Corp., Case No. 2:15-cv-00822 (D. Nev. Mar. 25, 2016) (Order) (granting motion to dismiss). The apparently inconsistent PTAB and district court dispositions will no doubt encourage accused-infringers/putative-petitioners who do not succeed in initiating AIA (trial) review under a low evidentiary burden to try to invalidate the patent in district court under a higher evidentiary standard. Further, these decisions collectively demonstrate how a PTAB’s institution decision denying AIA review can be, without an appeal, effectively nullified by a parallel or later court proceeding.
Continue Reading No Appellate Review, No Matter: District Court Invalidates Patent After the PTAB Denies CBM Review

Up and down arrowsThere have been a few short articles floating around over the past few years that list the top (usually four or five) mistakes that petitioners have made to doom their IPR/CBM petitions. These articles sometimes refer to the need for the petitioner to pay attention to detail, but then often fail to go into detail about what those details might be.
Continue Reading Failure To Identify The Difference Makes A Difference

brown gavel and open book on a wooden table of the law in the courtroom

In what appears to be the first district court case to address the issue directly, Judge Lefkow of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not preclude parties from raising grounds in a civil litigation that were cumulative of grounds that could have been asserted during that party’s prior IPR proceeding, so long as the grounds are based on prior art that was not reasonably available during the IPR. 
Continue Reading District Court Interprets IPR Estoppel Provision to Permit Reliance

AppleRemember when the PTAB denied institution of two IPR petitions filed by Kyle Bass’s Coalition for Affordable Drugs V LLC’s (CFAD) against Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. (Acorda)?  Well, if at first you don’t succeed, try citing different prior art! 
Continue Reading A Second Bite at the Apple? Kyle Bass’s CFAD is Awarded IPR Institution of Follow-on Petitions

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.