The AIA explicitly bestows the USPTO Director with the authority to institute IPRs and the PTAB with the authority to decide the ultimate question of patent validity. The Director delegated the authority to institute IPRs to the Board, but is it proper to assign the decision to the same APJs that render a final decision? A split panel at the Federal Circuit held that neither the AIA nor the Constitution precludes the same PTAB panel from rendering both institution and final decisions. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Coviden LP, No. 2014-1771 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Panel’s Authority to Institute IPRs and Issue Final Decision
Court Reviews Use of Broadest Reasonable Construction IPR Proceedings
On January 15, 2016, the United States Supreme Court agreed to consider whether it is appropriate to give claims challenged in inter partes review their “broadest reasonable construction.” See Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC v. Lee. Given the Federal Circuit’s dismal recent track record when the Supreme Court has injected itself into disputed patent issues, practitioners are likely girding for a tectonic shift in IPR proceedings. For those beleaguered by litigation from non-practicing entities, they may be justified in fearing that coveted IPR proceedings will become less useful as a bulwark against such cases.
Continue Reading Court Reviews Use of Broadest Reasonable Construction IPR Proceedings
Dissent: “Deferential review by the Federal Circuit falls short”
In Merck & CIE v. Gnosis S.P.A., Gnosis Bioresearch S.A., Gnosis U.S.A. Inc., Case No. 2014-1779 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2015), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision that the contested claims were invalid for obviousness, determining that the Board’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence, and agreeing with the Board’s conclusion of obviousness. However, in dissent, Judge Newman asserted that the Federal Circuit’s substantial evidence standard of review for the Board’s factual findings in AIA trial decisions is not appropriate under the AIA, and that based on a review without deference, the Board’s decision in this case should be reversed.
Continue Reading Dissent: “Deferential review by the Federal Circuit falls short”
PTAB Confronts Issues Raised By IPR Remand From Federal Circuit
In issuing a second final decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn Inc., IPR2012-00026/ IPR2013-00109, Paper No. 80 (Dec. 9, 2015), the PTAB dealt with a “what do we do now,” both procedurally and substantively, after its initial final decision was reversed in part and remanded “for further proceedings” by the Federal Circuit in an opinion available at 789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Federal Circuit’s partial reversal and remand stemmed from its conclusion that the PTAB, in its initial final decision, construed two claim terms too broadly and employed that misconstruction in finding claims of the patent at issue invalid. Our prior discussion of the Federal Circuit decision is at this link.
Continue Reading PTAB Confronts Issues Raised By IPR Remand From Federal Circuit
Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Victory on Invalidity Ground the Petition Did Not Even Present
In SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2015-1159, -1160 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2015), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decisions in two CBM patent review proceedings that canceled claims in SightSound’s patents as being obvious over prior art (referred to as the CompuSonics publications), even though Apple did not present that specific challenge in its petitions. The Federal Circuit’s decision is important because it shows that the court will not review a PTAB decision to institute an AIA trial on a ground the petitioner did not present.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Victory on Invalidity Ground the Petition Did Not Even Present
Federal Circuit: Patent Owners Must Consider Prior Art from Prosecution History in Motion to Amend
Update: Overruled in part by Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal. In a subsequent order, the court vacated the portions of the panel’s and the PTAB’s decisions concerning the patent owner’s motion to amend, and remanded the case to the PTAB for proceedings consistent with the Aqua Products decision.
In December 4, 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed in a split opinion the Board’s final written decision in ScentAir Techs., Inc. v. Prolitec, Inc., IPR2013-00179, finding that the two claims of Prolitec’s U.S. Patent No. 7,712,683 (“’683 patent”) were unpatentable and denying Prolitec’s motion to amend. Although several issues were addressed by the Board and Federal Circuit, perhaps of most interest is the court’s conclusion that the Board properly denied Prolitec’s motion to amend because Prolitic did not demonstrate patentability of the substitute claim over prior art of record during prosecution of the patent.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit: Patent Owners Must Consider Prior Art from Prosecution History in Motion to Amend
CAFC Confirms Constitutionality of Inter Partes Review
The Federal Circuit rejected a patentee’s appeal arguing that inter partes review is unconstitutional for violating Article III and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 2015-1091 (Fed. Cir. December 2, 2015). The precedential decision affirms the PTAB’s authority to adjudicate the validity of issued patents.
Continue Reading CAFC Confirms Constitutionality of Inter Partes Review
PTAB Refuses to Terminate AIA Trial Despite Applying the Estoppel Provision to Dismiss the Petitioner
The PTAB recently issued an order applying the estoppel provision of the AIA (35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1)) to dismiss a petitioner from covered business method (CBM) patent review proceedings a few days before a consolidated final hearing. Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, CBM2015-00015, Paper 49 (PTAB Nov. 4, 2015) (common order involving CBM2015-00016 and CBM2015-00018). The order is significant because it offers guidance on how the PTAB interprets this provision and applies it to decide whether a petitioner “reasonably could have raised” a patentability challenge clarified by a Supreme Court decision that was not available during an earlier CBM proceeding involving the same parties, the same patent, and the same claims.
Continue Reading PTAB Refuses to Terminate AIA Trial Despite Applying the Estoppel Provision to Dismiss the Petitioner
Don’t Try To Observe Your Own Witness
While it is obviously frustrating when an opponent files a paper citing snippets of your own expert’s testimony out of context, a party’s attempt here to right the wrong after the fact was rebuffed by the PTAB and illustrates why mastering the PTAB’s guidelines and prior decisions, and thinking ahead with the same firmly in mind, is paramount. Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc. v. Enova Technology Corp., IPR2014-01178, Paper 45 (Oct. 28, 2015).
Continue Reading Don’t Try To Observe Your Own Witness
A 200% Increase in Appeals of Patent Office Decisions to the Federal Circuit
In August of 2012, the Federal Register published the Patent Office’s estimate of the number of AIA trial petitions the Office then expected to receive in each of the three succeeding fiscal years (each such year ends September 30). In October of 2015, the Patent Office published a report of the number of trial petitions it actually received during these fiscal years. The table below presents this same information:
Continue Reading A 200% Increase in Appeals of Patent Office Decisions to the Federal Circuit