Exclusion of evidence before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an Inter Partes Review is governed by the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, (Aug. 14, 2012), which states that a motion to exclude “must explain why the evidence is not admissible (e.g., relevance or hearsay) but may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact.” Id at 48767. 
This provides little guidance to the party trying to exclude evidence in an IPR, and the frequent denial of Motions to Exclude in IPRs seems to encourage parties to include any and all possible evidence, even some that might not be admissible, and simply rely on the Board to consider the proper weight to give it.
Continue Reading Does Frequent Denial Of Motions To Exclude Evidence In IPRs Encourage Evidence Dumping?
PTAB Clarifies Meaning of Prior Art “Of Record” and “Known” In Context of a Motion to Amend – What Now?
In MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc., the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reaffirmed that the patent owner bears the burden of establishing the patentability of any amended claims proposed in an AIA trial over two categories of prior art: (a) the “prior art of record” and (b) “prior art known to the patent owner.” IPR2015-00040, Paper 42 (PTAB July 15, 2015). Nothing new there. What is new is the PTAB’s “clarification” of what constitutes such prior art:
Continue Reading PTAB Clarifies Meaning of Prior Art “Of Record” and “Known” In Context of a Motion to Amend – What Now?
Put Away The Blunderbuss – Attention to Detail and Thoroughness Are Needed in Preparing an IPR Petition
Boehringer Ingelheim filed three petitions attacking patents generally drawn to methods of treating RA patients with rituximab. The decisions on two of those petitions, i.e., IPR2015-00415 and IPR2015-00417, have been addressed elsewhere. In IPR2015-00418, the PTAB declined to institute an IPR on the petition’s challenges to the lone claim of U.S. Patent No. 8,329,172, drawn to a method of treating low-grade non-Hodgkins lymphoma (LG-NHL) with CVP tri-chemical chemotherapy and rituximab maintenance therapy.
Continue Reading Put Away The Blunderbuss – Attention to Detail and Thoroughness Are Needed in Preparing an IPR Petition
Gamble At Your Own Risk – The Danger Of Petition Overkill
Boehringer Ingelheim filed the petition at issue in IPR2015-00417 concurrently with the petitions at issue in IPR2015-00415 and IPR2015-00418 to challenge patents protecting methodologies for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with rituximab, an FDA-approved antibody for treating certain cancers. The IPR2015-00417 petition specifically challenged the fourteen claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,976,838, which are drawn to methods of administering rituximab to RA patients not responding to TNF-α inhibitors, a subset of RA patients. The PTAB instituted an IPR of two of the 19 obviousness grounds contained in the petition. Given the number, and nature, of grounds to be reviewed, and the outcome, it is apparent that the more grounds found in a petition, the greater the chance that the best arguments will be lost in the shuffle.
Continue Reading Gamble At Your Own Risk – The Danger Of Petition Overkill
Grinning Patentees Get A Mulligan
Filed concurrently with the petitions at issue in IPR2015-00417 and IPR2015-00418, Boehringer Ingelheim filed the petition at issue in IPR2015-00415 seeking review of U.S. Patent No. 7,820,161 owned by Genentech and Biogen Idec. The Board’s institution decision steadily whittled down Boehringer’s varied attacks on the patent. Ultimately, IPR was granted on 2 of the 36 obviousness grounds in the petition (additional grounds were summarily denied for failure to identify the ground with particularity), with the two surviving grounds implicating half of the 12 claims of the ‘161 patent.
Continue Reading Grinning Patentees Get A Mulligan
PTAB Judges Give Discovery Insights and Allude to Rule Changes
In a Boardside Chat on July 14, two PTAB judges provided insights regarding discovery best practices and strategies in AIA proceedings and alluded to upcoming rule changes that may change the standard for seeking discovery. The panel featured Lead Judge Grace Obermann and Judge Justin Arbes.
Continue Reading PTAB Judges Give Discovery Insights and Allude to Rule Changes
Keep Your Distance: The PTAB Limits Direct Communication Between a Party and an Opposing Expert
On July 7, 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued an order in Square, Inc. v. Think Computer Corporation, CBM2014-00159, stating that any ex parte communication between a Patent Owner and an opposing expert outside the presence of counsel is “wholly inappropriate.” 
The order arose following an email communication sent from Aaron Greenspan, inventor of U.S. Patent No. 8,396,808 at issue and President/CEO of Think Computer Corporation, directly to Norman Sadeh-Koniecpol, Ph.D., a professor at Carnegie Mellon University and expert for the Petitioner.
Continue Reading Keep Your Distance: The PTAB Limits Direct Communication Between a Party and an Opposing Expert
Federal Circuit Confirms Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard
A sharply divided Federal Circuit denied Cuozzo Speed Technology’s petition for rehearing en banc on the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) standard used in Inter Partes Review (IPR). 
Chief Judge Prost and Judges Newman, Moore, O’Malley, and Reyna voted for en banc review, but could not persuade Judges Lourie, Dyk, Wallach, Taranto, Chen, and Hughes to reconsider In re Cuozzo Speed Tech (Fed. Cir. 2015). According to the dissent, IPR should employ the same claim interpretation standard as district court litigation because:
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Confirms Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard
PTAB Grants Request for Rehearing on Decision to Institute
In a rare event, the PTAB recently changed one of its decisions denying institution of inter partes review of a claim. That change was prompted by the IPR-petitioner’s request for rehearing on the PTAB’s original institution decision in Apple Inc. et al. v. Memory Integrity, LLC, IPR2015-00163. Decision on Institution (Paper 18, “Orig. Dec.”); Request for Rehearing (Paper 20, “Req. Reh’g”); Decision on Request for Rehearing (Paper 22, “Dec.”). A search of Docket Navigator reveals that fewer than one in five such requests for rehearing are granted.
Continue Reading PTAB Grants Request for Rehearing on Decision to Institute
PTAB Denies Petitioner’s Request to Terminate IPR Two Months After Institution Decision
The PTAB denied a Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a motion to terminate an IPR without a final written decision, made only two months after the Board issued a decision instituting the IPR. Masterimage 3D, Inc. v. Reald Inc., Case IPR2015-00035, Paper No. 30 (June 25, 2015).
After institution of an IPR but before the Patent Owner had filed a response, the Petitioner Masterimage 3D, Inc. sought permission to request adverse judgment and termination of the IPR, to avoid the estoppel effects of a final written decision. The Patent Owner opposed this request, on the basis that it desires the Petitioner to be bound by estoppel effects of a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e); and because the Patent Owner may file a motion to amend in the proceeding.
Continue Reading PTAB Denies Petitioner’s Request to Terminate IPR Two Months After Institution Decision