Once a trial has been instituted at the PTAB, a party seeking consideration of supplemental evidence may file a motion in accordance with the following requirements: (1) the request for the authorization to file a motion to submit supplemental information must be made within one month of the date the trial was instituted; and (2) the supplemental information must be relevant to a claim for which the trial was instituted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a). Mere satisfaction of these requirements for filing a motion may not, however, be sufficient to convince the PTAB to grant the motion. Instead, in deciding the motion, the PTAB will use its broad discretion to determine if the proffered supplemental evidence will assist the PTAB in “ensur[ing] efficient administration of the Office and the ability of the Office to complete [trial] proceedings in a timely manner.” See Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 445 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and our discussions here and here.
Continue Reading Your Supplemental Evidence is Timely, but is it Relevant to a Claim at Issue? PTAB Will Decide.
PTAB Issues First Biotech/Pharma Post-Grant Review Final Written Decision – All Claims Survive
The first final written decision in a post-grant review of a patent arising from Art Unit 1600 issued November 14, 2016, in Altaire Pharm. Inc.. v. Paragon Bioteck, Inc., PGR2015-00011. PGRs allow challenge based on enablement, written description, indefiniteness, and subject matter eligibility, in addition to the novelty and obviousness bases available in IPRs, permitting petitioners to rely on arguments commonly used to invalidate biotechnology and pharmaceutical patents in litigation. Here, however, the PTAB instituted PGR based only on obviousness grounds, and ultimately determined that the petitioner did not meet its burden in proving the unpatentability of the challenged claims.
Continue Reading PTAB Issues First Biotech/Pharma Post-Grant Review Final Written Decision – All Claims Survive
One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Enfish: Unraveling the Maze of Parallel Court/PTAB Proceedings
The saga of Enfish v. Microsoft continues. The Enfish litigation provides a textbook example of the multi-pronged defense now common with the advent of post-grant review and the evolving law concerning unpatentable subject matter. Many are no doubt aware of the significant Federal Circuit decision on patentable subject matter (i.e. Section 101) which this litigation spawned. Less familiar are the parallel developments in the PTAB. Most recently, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s determination that some, but not all, of the claims of the asserted patents were invalid in light of prior art. Microsoft Corp.v. Enfish, LLC, No. 2015-1734 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 30, 2016) (non-precedential).
Continue Reading One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Enfish: Unraveling the Maze of Parallel Court/PTAB Proceedings
Federal Circuit to take AIA Time Bar issue En Banc
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
District Court Interprets the IPR Estoppel Provision Narrowly
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
PTAB Should Have Canceled All Challenged Claims in CBM Reviews
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
Federal Circuit to PTAB (Again) – Explain Yourself!!
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!!
Federal Circuit Dismisses Appeal Based on AIA Time Bar, But Two Judges Call for En Banc Review
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
PTAB Institutes Third Biotech/Pharma Post-Grant Review
To date, only 43 petitions for Post-Grant Review have been filed with the PTAB. Nine PGR petitions (21% of total petitions) have been filed to challenge patents arising from Art Unit 1600, which examines applications directed to biotechnology and organic chemistry subject matter. The PTAB recently instituted the third ever PGR for a biotech-related patent in B.R.A.H.M.S. Gmbh v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., PGR2016-00018.
The petitioner requested PGR of claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,091,698, directed to a method for the advanced detection of sepsis in a systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS)-positive subject involving measuring procalcitonin levels and one or more clinical markers over multiple time points, wherein an increase in the amount of procalcitonin from a previous amount over a 24-hour interval detects sepsis.
Continue Reading PTAB Institutes Third Biotech/Pharma Post-Grant Review
To Antedate, Must an Inventor Prove “Continuous Reasonable Diligence” or “Reasonably Continuous Diligence”?
A split panel of the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB applied a standard that was too exacting when it required an inventor to prove the “continuous exercise of reasonable diligence” to antedate a prior art reference. Rather, the PTAB should have applied the rule of reason to determine if the inventor proved that there was “reasonably continuous diligence.” Perfect Surgical Techniques v. Olympus America, Inc., Case No. 2015-2043, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2016). This clarified standard appears to ease the burden on a party seeking to prove diligence.
Continue Reading To Antedate, Must an Inventor Prove “Continuous Reasonable Diligence” or “Reasonably Continuous Diligence”?