As the patent community anxiously awaits the PTAB’s decision concerning whether the Coalition For Affordable Drugs (CFAD) should be sanctioned for filing an IPR petition against a Celgene patent¹, the PTAB recently denied institution of two IPR petitions² the CFAD filed concerning two Acorda patents that cover Ampyra, a billion-dollar drug for treating multiple sclerosis. The CFAD is a wholly owned subsidiary of a hedge fund managed by Kyle Bass and, since February 2015, Bass and the CFAD have filed twenty nine IPR petitions against more than twenty patents different patents belonging to at least fifteen different companies.
Continue Reading PTAB Denies Institution of Two IPR Petitions Filed by Hedge Fund
USPTO Proposes Single APJ Pilot Program for IPR Institution
Citing an interest in improving efficiency, the USPTO published a request for comments on a proposed pilot program that would change the way Inter Partes Review petitions are decided. 
Currently, a panel of three administrative patent judges (APJs) consider IPR petitions and determine whether to institute and conduct a trial. The trial is then conducted before the same panel of APJs, which issues a final written decision on the merits.
Continue Reading USPTO Proposes Single APJ Pilot Program for IPR Institution
AIA Rule Changes About Patent Owner Responses and Misconduct
On August 20, the USPTO published for comment in the Federal Register proposed changes to the rules governing PTAB trials. In general, the proposed amendments address the claim construction standard applied by the Board, evidence that may be included in the patent owner’s response, and a Rule 11-like misconduct standard for practitioners before the PTAB.
Continue Reading AIA Rule Changes About Patent Owner Responses and Misconduct
PTAB Denies CBM Petition for Lack of Standing, Interpreting “Privies” as Customers and Not Suppliers
Acxiom Corp. v. Phoenix Licensing LLC (CBM2015-00068, Paper 23) presents a rare denial of a petition for covered business method review (as of June 25, 2015, CBM petitions are granted at a rate of over 70%). In denying the petition, the PTAB stressed that, to have standing, a petitioner must have been sued (or threatened with suit), or be a privy to a party that has been sued (or been threatened with suit). And “privy” in this context is synonymous with customer. In other words, suppliers have a right to step in for their customers with a CBM, but not the other way around.
Continue Reading PTAB Denies CBM Petition for Lack of Standing, Interpreting “Privies” as Customers and Not Suppliers
PTAB Provides Roadmap for Petitioning for IPR of Design Patents
Less than one percent of petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) involve design patents. This is not surprising, as over 9,000,000 United States utility patents have issued compared to only about 735,000 design patents. Several recent developments in design patent law, however, may narrow the gap as applicants look for less expensive ways to enhance their portfolios. 
For example, U.S. design patents filed on or after May 13, 2015 enjoy a 15-year term with no maintenance fees. And U.S. design patent applicants may now file their design applications under the Hague Agreement, which publish six months after filing.
Continue Reading PTAB Provides Roadmap for Petitioning for IPR of Design Patents
Does Frequent Denial Of Motions To Exclude Evidence In IPRs Encourage Evidence Dumping?
Exclusion of evidence before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an Inter Partes Review is governed by the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, (Aug. 14, 2012), which states that a motion to exclude “must explain why the evidence is not admissible (e.g., relevance or hearsay) but may not be used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a particular fact.” Id at 48767. 
This provides little guidance to the party trying to exclude evidence in an IPR, and the frequent denial of Motions to Exclude in IPRs seems to encourage parties to include any and all possible evidence, even some that might not be admissible, and simply rely on the Board to consider the proper weight to give it.
Continue Reading Does Frequent Denial Of Motions To Exclude Evidence In IPRs Encourage Evidence Dumping?
Put Away The Blunderbuss – Attention to Detail and Thoroughness Are Needed in Preparing an IPR Petition
Boehringer Ingelheim filed three petitions attacking patents generally drawn to methods of treating RA patients with rituximab. The decisions on two of those petitions, i.e., IPR2015-00415 and IPR2015-00417, have been addressed elsewhere. In IPR2015-00418, the PTAB declined to institute an IPR on the petition’s challenges to the lone claim of U.S. Patent No. 8,329,172, drawn to a method of treating low-grade non-Hodgkins lymphoma (LG-NHL) with CVP tri-chemical chemotherapy and rituximab maintenance therapy.
Continue Reading Put Away The Blunderbuss – Attention to Detail and Thoroughness Are Needed in Preparing an IPR Petition
Gamble At Your Own Risk – The Danger Of Petition Overkill
Boehringer Ingelheim filed the petition at issue in IPR2015-00417 concurrently with the petitions at issue in IPR2015-00415 and IPR2015-00418 to challenge patents protecting methodologies for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with rituximab, an FDA-approved antibody for treating certain cancers. The IPR2015-00417 petition specifically challenged the fourteen claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,976,838, which are drawn to methods of administering rituximab to RA patients not responding to TNF-α inhibitors, a subset of RA patients. The PTAB instituted an IPR of two of the 19 obviousness grounds contained in the petition. Given the number, and nature, of grounds to be reviewed, and the outcome, it is apparent that the more grounds found in a petition, the greater the chance that the best arguments will be lost in the shuffle.
Continue Reading Gamble At Your Own Risk – The Danger Of Petition Overkill
Grinning Patentees Get A Mulligan
Filed concurrently with the petitions at issue in IPR2015-00417 and IPR2015-00418, Boehringer Ingelheim filed the petition at issue in IPR2015-00415 seeking review of U.S. Patent No. 7,820,161 owned by Genentech and Biogen Idec. The Board’s institution decision steadily whittled down Boehringer’s varied attacks on the patent. Ultimately, IPR was granted on 2 of the 36 obviousness grounds in the petition (additional grounds were summarily denied for failure to identify the ground with particularity), with the two surviving grounds implicating half of the 12 claims of the ‘161 patent.
Continue Reading Grinning Patentees Get A Mulligan
Keep Your Distance: The PTAB Limits Direct Communication Between a Party and an Opposing Expert
On July 7, 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued an order in Square, Inc. v. Think Computer Corporation, CBM2014-00159, stating that any ex parte communication between a Patent Owner and an opposing expert outside the presence of counsel is “wholly inappropriate.” 
The order arose following an email communication sent from Aaron Greenspan, inventor of U.S. Patent No. 8,396,808 at issue and President/CEO of Think Computer Corporation, directly to Norman Sadeh-Koniecpol, Ph.D., a professor at Carnegie Mellon University and expert for the Petitioner.
Continue Reading Keep Your Distance: The PTAB Limits Direct Communication Between a Party and an Opposing Expert