In an unusual fact situation, Judge Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware held that estoppel stemming from a Final Written Decision of the PTAB could arise even if issued after trial where the court has not yet entered final judgment on the relevant ground. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Par Pharmaceutical Inc., Case No. 14cv1289 (D. Del. April 11, 2019).
Continue Reading Estoppel May Arise After Trial
Is that Prior Art?
The nature of any inter partes dispute apparently is to engage in even a seemingly mundane dispute. After all, that’s the dispute that may lead you to success, right? Perhaps then there is nothing surprising in an April 3, 2019, Patent Trial and Appeal Board order concerned about whether a book qualifies as prior art. That order, issued by the Board’s new “Precedential Opinion Panel,” grants an aggrieved petitioner’s request for rehearing of an earlier Board decision refusing to institute inter partes review because the petitioner apparently did not establish a book bearing a 1990 (or 1991) copyright date was publicly available before the 1995 date on which the application for the subject patent was filed. Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2018-01039 (Apr. 1, 2019) (order).
Continue Reading Is that Prior Art?
PTAB Must Consider All Grounds Raised in an Instituted Petition
In AC Technologies S.A. v. Amazon.com, the Federal Circuit confirmed the PTO’s interpretation of SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018) (discussed in greater detail here) requiring that the PTAB address each ground of invalidity raised in an instituted petition in its final written decision. 912 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Continue Reading PTAB Must Consider All Grounds Raised in an Instituted Petition
Have You Included Specific Reference to Every Document in Your Priority Claim?
Incorporation by reference is not sufficient to satisfy specific reference to each prior-filed patent application to be entitled to an earlier priority date (Droplets, Inc. v. E*Trade Bank (887 F.3d 1309 (2018)). This appeal to the Federal Circuit stems from a dispute between Droplets, Inc. and E*TRADE Bank, over a patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,402,115 (“the ’115 Patent”)) owned by Droplets. At issue is the effective filing date of Droplets’ ‘115 patent.
Continue Reading Have You Included Specific Reference to Every Document in Your Priority Claim?
Patent Office Announces New Amendments Procedure for AIA Trials
For AIA trials instituted on or after March 15, 2019, the patent owner may opt-in to a pilot program the Patent Office implemented for motion to amend (“MTA”) practice and procedures in the PTAB’s administration of these trials. Today’s Federal Register (link) includes the Patent Office’s explanation of the program, which it proposed in October 2018. The Office’s explanation also includes its reply to comments the public offered in response to the proposal. Generally, the comments supported the proposed program, but expressed concerns over the tight timelines proposed. The implemented program appears to address those concerns.
Continue Reading Patent Office Announces New Amendments Procedure for AIA Trials
Newly Appointed Chief Judge Scott Boalick Addresses PTAB Bar Association
Addressing the PTAB Bar Association Conference in its opening session, newly appointed Chief Judge Scott Boalick explained that his goal as Chief Judge is to bring stability to the board and increase predictability. He wants all parties coming to the Board to feel that they have gotten a fair shake and that the procedures are fair.
Continue Reading Newly Appointed Chief Judge Scott Boalick Addresses PTAB Bar Association
What Qualifies As Prior Art?
This blog has previously reported on several PTAB and Federal Circuit decisions concerning what does and does not qualify as prior art:
Continue Reading What Qualifies As Prior Art?
Federal Circuit Invites Patent Office to Open Pandora’s Box
It is puzzling, if not troubling, that the Federal Circuit recently invited (link) the Patent Office to submit a brief expressing its views on the scope of the petitioner estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), a veritable Pandora’s Box. It is puzzling because only the judiciary can apply this estoppel provision, the Patent Office cannot. It is troubling not necessarily because the Patent Office unsurprisingly accepted the court’s invitation, but because it then answered in the affirmative a broad question the court did not pose: “whether section 315(e)(2) bars a successful inter partes review petitioner from making the same arguments in district court that it prevailed on in the inter partes review.” By inviting the court to conclude as much, the Patent Office has identified a statutory gaffe that may require parties to reevaluate the risks and rewards in pursuing inter partes review in parallel with district court actions.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Invites Patent Office to Open Pandora’s Box
FC Affirms Obviousness Decision by Board Trigger of Time Bar
In Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. F’real Foods, LLC, Appeal No. IPR2016-01107 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decision in an IPR upholding the patentability of a patent claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Additionally, the court discussed but did not determine whether improper standing at the time of filing a complaint might impact the application of the one-year time bar under 35 U.S.C. §315(b). The decision provides a good opportunity for practitioners to brush up on the fundamentals governing obviousness determinations and suggests that the case law surrounding the one-year time-bar under §315(c) may still evolve.
Continue Reading FC Affirms Obviousness Decision by Board Trigger of Time Bar
“Your Call”: Fed. Cir. Says OK not to Reconsider Despite Remand
In Dell, Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 884 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board was not required to consider arguments first presented by the petitioner at oral argument, despite having remanded an earlier appeal of the Board’s decision for that very purpose. In that earlier appeal, the court had concluded that the Board deprived patent owner, Acceleron, a fair opportunity to rebut new arguments petitioner Dell presented during oral argument—arguments that convinced the Board to cancel Acceleron’s patent claims. The court had vacated the Board’s decision and remanded for reconsideration. On remand, the Board elected not to consider Dell’s new argument and, reversing itself, the Board found as a consequence that Dell had failed to establish that the challenged claims were anticipated.
Continue Reading “Your Call”: Fed. Cir. Says OK not to Reconsider Despite Remand