In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, Inc., v. Lee, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision, upholding the PTAB’s use of the BRI standard for claim interpretation in IPRs, and determining that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars judicial review of the PTAB’s decision to institute review on grounds not specifically raised in the IPR petition.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Upholds Use of BRI Standard in Cuozzo
The PTAB has continued the trend of pushing the -“antibody exception” to written description into an ever-smaller corner. Claims to methods of using antibodies that bind Siglec-15 to impair osteoclast differentiation and inhibit bone resorption were deprived of priority because the parent application failed to disclose the “antigenic regions useful for generating antibodies having the desired functional properties.” Consequently, the claims were anticipated by the cited reference under 35 U.S.C. §102(a), and Patentee’s other evidence of prior conception, diligence and reduction to practice was insufficient to antedate the reference. Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. v. Alethia Biotherapeutics, Inc., IPR2015-00291 (Paper No. 75, June 14, 2016) (final written decision).
Continue Reading Squeezing the ‘Antibody Exception’ to Written Description into a Corner
The Board initially denied institution of Mylan Pharmaceuticals’ petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. RE44,186, owned by AstraZeneca. After a rare grant of Mylan’s request for rehearing, the Board reconsidered the record and decided to institute the IPR. The decision to institute focused on the content of Mylan’s expert testimony; and although not mentioned in the decision, the replacement of one APJ in the PTAB panel for the decision on rehearing might have played a role in the grant of the request for rehearing and the decision to institute the IPR on rehearing even though both decisions were unanimous.
Continue Reading Rare Grant of Rehearing of Denial of Petition for Inter Partes Review
In a recent appeal from a PTAB final written decision, the Federal Circuit determined that a patentee was not denied notice or an opportunity to respond to references cited in the final written decision as representing the state of the art, but that were not the basis for a grounds for institution. (Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Ltd. v BioMarin Pharm. Inc., Appeal Nos. 2015-1720, -1721 (Fed. Circ., June 14, 2016)). The court concluded that there is no requirement, either in the PTAB’s regulations, in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), or as a matter of due process, for the institution decision to anticipate and set forth every legal or factual issue that might arise during the trial, and that the PTAB acted properly in citing the additional references.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Confirms PTAB Can Cite Prior Art in IPR Final Decision That Was Not In Grounds Of Institution
A judgment in an interference disposes of all issues that were, or by motion could have properly been, raised and decided. A losing party who could have properly moved for relief on an issue, but did not so move, may not take action in the Patent Office after the judgment that is inconsistent with that party’s failure to move. 37 C.F.R. § 41.127. This is known as “interference estoppel,” and was recently applied by the PTAB in partially denying an IPR petition. See Adama Makhteshim Ltd. v. Finchimica S.p.A., IPR2016-00577 (PTAB May 24, 2016) (order partially instituting IPR). The decision is important because it is a rare example of the PTAB’s consideration and application of interference estoppel to other Patent Office proceedings, including AIA trials.
Continue Reading PTAB Applies Interference Estoppel to Deny IPR Grounds
The Federal Circuit recently vacated or reversed-in-part two PTAB final written decisions on the basis that the PTAB did not adequately describe its reasons for concluding the claimed invention is obvious. In both instances, the court criticized the Board’s “broad, conclusory statements” regarding one of ordinary skill’s motivation to adjust prior art teachings. These decisions highlight an attractive grounds for appealing a PTAB’s final written decision.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit to PTAB – Explain yourself!!
An updated discussion of this issue is available here: Who Must Bear the Burden of Proof Regarding Patentability of Amended Claims?
The Federal Circuit confirmed in a precedential opinion that the burden to prove patentability of an amended claim in an IPR proceeding rests squarely with the patentee, and in deciding a motion to amend claims, the Board only need consider the arguments presented by the patentee, not perform a full reexamination of the proposed claims. In In re Aqua Products, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1177 (Fed. Cir. May 25, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s denial of patentee Aqua’s motion to substitute claims because Aqua failed to prove patentability of the substitute claims. Aqua then appealed challenging the Board’s amendment process.
Continue Reading Board Need Not Consider Arguments Beyond Those Actually Raised By Patentee In Motion To Amend
Institution was denied in two IPR proceedings on the grounds that the petitions were filed more than one year after petitioner was served with a complaint alleging patent infringement. The documents were electronically filed but proof of payment of filing fees were one minute and nine minutes late, respectively. Additionally service had not been completed before the midnight deadline.
Continue Reading The PTAB Has No Sympathy for the Last Minute Filer
On May 20, 2016, the PTAB granted Kyle Bass and Erich Spangenberg’s petition for IPR (IPR2016-00245) against a patent owned by Alpex Pharma SA (Alpex). The petition sought cancellation of claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 8,440,170, asserting that the claims were obvious in view of numerous references. The claims of the ‘170 patent are generally directed to orally disintegrating tablets with a speckled appearance. According to the ‘170 patent, the speckled appearance can be achieved by using colored granules of a water-soluble sugar, and provides easy identification by doctors and patients. Bass and Spangenberg argue in the petition that the patent is invalid as obvious because speckles comprising colored granules of a water-soluble sugar were well-known in the art at the time of the invention.
Continue Reading The Personal Touch: PTAB Grants Bass and Spangenberg IPR Petition
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed the Board’s IPR decision that IBS failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating obviousness of the challenged claims of Illumina’s U.S. Patent No. 7,566,537 (“the ‘537 patent), and determined that the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider IBS’s reply brief. Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., Case No. 2015-1693 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2016). Illumina contended that its challenged claims, directed to a method of labeling nucleotides to determine their identity in a sequencing by synthesis (SBS) method, were nonobvious based on its use of a particular azidomethyl group as a 3′ OH blocking (or protecting) group.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Upholds Rule that New Petitioner Arguments Cannot Be Raised in IPR Reply Briefs