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
Short of invalidating a patent, can the outcome of IPR dictate the outcome of a district court case? The interplay between PTAB and district courts remains uncertain. As we’ve previously reported 
An expanded, split panel of the PTAB recently decided that it may be appropriate to join the same party’s serially-filed IPR petitions into a single proceeding, even when one such petition would otherwise be time-barred but for the joinder. 
The Board’s decisions instituting inter partes review on several grounds in two petitions filed by Deere & Company provide guidance on possible ways to organize an IPR petition and identify grounds for review. Deere filed two petitions (IPR2015-00898 and -00899) against U.S. Patent No. 6,202,395 (Gramm) asserting parallel challenges based on slightly different groupings of prior art. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted trial on both, offering four observations that may be helpful when preparing an IPR petition.
The purported culprits? The PTAB and the America Invents Act’s newly enacted Inter Partes Review and Covered Business Method Review. “
Final written decisions, 
before a jury. As a result, some district courts have allowed IPR institution decisions regarding a patent-in-suit to be presented as evidence in a pending litigation (see 
The PTAB recently granted Celltrion’s motion to dismiss its IPRs without prejudice, after Celltrion suddenly lost its ability to rely on a key expert declaration. Celltrion had filed IPR petitions against two patents covering use of Rituxan®, and had sought joinder with pending IPRs filed by Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) against the same patents. Although Celltrion initially had permission to rely on testimony of BI’s expert, that permission was withdrawn after BI unilaterally requested adverse judgment in its IPRs. Left out in the cold, Celltrion requested dismissal without prejudice, to permit it to re-file its petitions with a new expert. The PTAB granted the request.