Inter Partes Review / IPR

Subscribe to Inter Partes Review / IPR via RSS

Pills flowing out of a bottle of prescription medicine with information of their possible serious side effects.

The PTAB recently addressed the limits on strategies to patent drug labeling, canceling claims directed to a method of supplying a pharmaceutical product where the method includes a step of providing certain “information” to the medical provider. According to the PTAB, the claimed step of providing the information is entitled to no patentable weight under the “printed matter” doctrine where it is not functionally related to other elements of the claimed method.  Specifically, even if the claim says that the information is “sufficient to” cause some effect (e.g., for a medical provider to avoid treating a patient) there is no functional relationship with the claim if the claim doesn’t recite that effect.   Praxair Distribution Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hospital Prods. IP Ltd., IPR2015-00529.
Continue Reading “Providing . . . information” Step Given No Patentable Weight

Victory comes if you are lucky on dices

In what could become a common patent challenge strategy, PeroxyChem, a chemical company that sells products useful in water and soil remediation, has employed a three-front assault—combining the relatively young post-grant review procedure, with an IPR and litigation–to take on one of its competitors, Innovative Environmental Technologies (IET).  Litigation together with an IPR has become a rather common means to challenge a competitor’s patent. However, post grant review is gaining in popularity among litigants, adding to the available strategies of overcoming potential barriers to market entry for companies.  For example, while 12 Petitions for PGR were filed in all of 2015, 15 have been filed so far in the first half of 2016. 
Continue Reading The Three-Front Assault: PeroxyChem Uses IPR, PGR and District Court to Challenge Opponent

Funny vintage detective looking through a magnifier

This blog has previously explained on July 23, 2015, December 10, 2015, and December 16, 2015 why it is important for parties to AIA trials to carefully consider the patent prosecution history.  Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the Board has discretion to deny an AIA trial if “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.”  The Board recently exercised that discretion in denying an inter partes review petition and, in doing so, provided yet another warning to petitioners: do not waste the Board’s time presenting in a petition prior art and arguments that were already considered during prosecution, and be sure to address deficiencies in prior art combinations the patentee overcame during prosecution.  Drug Prices for Consumers,  LLC v. Forest Labs. Holdings Ltd., Case IPR2016-00379, Paper 14 (PTAB July 1, 2016).
Continue Reading Been There, Done That: Petitioners Should Find Art and Arguments Not Previously Considered During Prosecution

[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

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

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.