Tag Archives: Post Grant Review / PGR

No Weight for Unsupported Expert Witness Testimony

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Inter Partes Review, Post Grant Review, Trial Procedures
In early February 2023, the Patent Office’s Director designated as precedential the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision in Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022). In this decision, the Board denied a petition seeking inter partes review. The petitioner asserted the challenged patent claims were obvious over printed publication … Continue Reading

Supreme Court to Review the Arthrex Decision

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Appeals, CBM, Covered Business Method, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Post Grant Review
The Supreme Court issued an order on October 13, 2020, granting and consolidating three certiorari petitions seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s judgment in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), reh’g denied, 953 F.3d 760 (Fed. Cir. 2020). We discussed the Federal Circuit’s judgment here and its decision … Continue Reading

The Arthrex Mulligan

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Covered Business Method, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Post Grant Review, Stays, Trial Procedures
The Federal Circuit, in Arthrex, concluded that the Patent and Trial Appeal Board’s Administrative Patent Judges were unconstitutionally appointed “principal” officers. The court therefore vacated the Board’s decision that canceled claims in an inter partes review and remanded so a new panel of APJs would re-decide the patentability of the claims. What happens, however, when … Continue Reading

A Fine Mess

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Covered Business Method, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Post Grant Review, Trial Procedures
Update (Apr. 3, 2020): The Federal Circuit recently denied rehearing petitions in the Polaris appeals referenced below (see link and link), and also denied the PTO’s request to stay the mandate in the Arthrex appeal (see link). The Federal Circuit recently issued an order denying multiple rehearing petitions in Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, … Continue Reading

Haste Makes Waste?

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Appeals, Covered Business Method, Inter Partes Review, Interferences
If the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex wasn’t sufficiently newsworthy, then look at what lurks in its wake. The day after the decision, the court issued precedential orders indicating that a timely Constitutional challenge apparently must be presented to the court in an opening brief. A few days after those orders, two of the court’s … Continue Reading

Fixing an Appointments Clause Violation

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Covered Business Method, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Post Grant Review, Trial Procedures
In Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 31, 2019), the Federal Circuit concluded that the PTAB’s Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) are “principal” officers and their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce therefore violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The issue arose in an appeal of a decision by a panel … Continue Reading

The Chaos of Too Many Rules

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Post Grant Review, Trial Procedures
The Patent Office issued Honeywell a patent that required correction. The patent, according to Honeywell, did not include the proper claim for the benefit of priority to the filing date of an application that Honeywell had earlier filed. But before Honeywell noticed the error and tried to correct that priority claim, its competitor, Arkema, petitioned … Continue Reading

Trial Practice Guide Updates and Future Fee Increases

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Covered Business Method, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Post Grant Review, Trial Procedures
Today’s Federal Register includes a notice that the Patent Office updated its August 2012 Trial Practice Guide. The Federal Circuit recently noted that the Practice Guide “is a thoughtful and useful resource to which individual Board members and the public might turn for guidance,” but “is not binding on Board panel members.” Application in Internet … Continue Reading

PTAB Issues First Biotech/Pharma PGR Final Written Decision Based On Written Description Challenge

By Heather R. Kissling on Posted in Post Grant Review, Section 112
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has received 37 petitions for post grant review of patents issuing from examination conducted by the Patent Office’s Group Art Unit 1600. The Board has issued four final written decisions thus far.  We discussed the first final written decision here, where all claims were upheld in the face of … Continue Reading

Proposed Hatch-Waxman Amendment Would Effectively Eliminate IPR Challenges by Generics

By Chelsea M. Murray on Posted in Amendments, Inter Partes Review, Legislation
On June 13, 2018, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced to the Senate Judiciary Committee an amendment to restore the careful balance sought in the Hatch-Waxman Act, which provided incentives for both pharmaceutical innovation and drug affordability. The amendment, titled the Hatch-Waxman Integrity Act of 2018, would modify the IPR process for pharmaceuticals—under Hatch-Waxman and the … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Decides that IPR Final Decisions Must Address All Challenged Claims

By Sandip H. Patel and Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Covered Business Method, Estoppel, Institution / Denial, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Post Grant Review, Trial Procedures
On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, holding that if the Patent Office institutes an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, it must issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of every patent claim challenged by the petitioner. The Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s … Continue Reading

Avoid Creating Bad Blood with the Board

By Kate Nuehring Su on Posted in Institution / Denial, Section 101, Sections 102/103
The Board recently denied a post grant review petition because the challenge was deemed redundant of the Patent Office’s earlier examination of similar claims in a related application. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. v. Complete Entertainment Resources  B.V., Case No. PGR2017-00038 (PTAB January 16, 2018). The decision offers a cautionary tale for patent practitioners.  The Board … Continue Reading

Petitioners Will Pay More for Immensely Popular AIA Trials

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Inter Partes Review, IPR, Post Grant Review
In the November 14, 2017, Federal Register, the Patent Office issued its final rule setting and adjusting the fees the Office charges for its products and services, including relatively substantial increases for standard AIA trial fees (as shown below). As a simple example, a petitioner challenging all claims of a patent containing 30 claims will … Continue Reading

Enactment of the STRONGER Patents Act Would Severely Limit PTAB Proceedings

By Sharon M. Sintich, Ph.D. on Posted in Amendments, Appeals, Discovery, Estoppel, Institution / Denial, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Legislation, Post Grant Review, Real Party-in-Interest, Stays, Trial Procedures
The STRONGER (Support Technology & Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience) Patents Act of 2017 was recently introduced in the Senate.  The Act is an updated version of the STRONG Patents Act of 2015 that stalled in Congress.  Like its predecessor, the STRONGER Patents Act is designed to significantly modify the AIA trial … Continue Reading

To Establish Entitlement to an Earlier Effective Filing Date, Every Claim Limitation Must be Addressed

By Joshua T. Elliott on Posted in Section 112
The PTAB’s final written decision in Inguran, LLC d/b/a Sexing Techs. v. Premium Genetics (UK) LTD., Case PGR2015-00017, Paper 22 (PTAB 2016), illustrates what a Patent Owner must do to demonstrate that a challenged claim is entitled to an earlier effective filing date in an AIA trial. The PGR involved U.S. Patent 8,933,395, which issued … Continue Reading

Pending Bill Would Deliver More Judicial Scrutiny to USPTO and FDA Rules

By Michael Muczynski on Posted in Claim Construction, Institution / Denial, Inter Partes Review, Legislation, Post Grant Review
 The House of Representatives recently sent to the Senate its bill (H.R.5) that combines six previous regulatory reform bills, including, as Title II of the bill, the “Separation of Powers Restoration Act.”  Section 202 of the bill effectively removes the option for courts to apply Chevron deference to agency rulemaking and interpretations.  Thus, rather than deciding … Continue Reading

PTAB Issues First Biotech/Pharma Post-Grant Review Final Written Decision – All Claims Survive

By Heather R. Kissling on Posted in Post Grant Review, Sections 102/103
The first final written decision in a post-grant review of a patent arising from Art Unit 1600 issued November 14, 2016, in Altaire Pharm. Inc.. v. Paragon Bioteck, Inc., PGR2015-00011.  PGRs allow challenge based on enablement, written description, indefiniteness, and subject matter eligibility, in addition to the novelty and obviousness bases available in IPRs, permitting … Continue Reading

It All Depends On How You Frame It

By Jeremy R. Kriegel on Posted in Post Grant Review
Galaxia Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Revolution Display, LLC, PGR2016-00021, Galaxia sought post-grant review of Revolution’s U.S. Design Patent No. D736,750, entitled “Modular Video Support Frame Member.” The patented design was directed to a support frame for video monitors used in large-scale LED video image displays, such as those used on-stage at rock concerts, on the … Continue Reading

PTAB Institutes Third Biotech/Pharma Post-Grant Review

thumbnail image of DNA strandBy Heather R. Kissling on Posted in Biotechnology, Post Grant Review, Section 112
To date, only 43 petitions for Post-Grant Review have been filed with the PTAB.  Nine PGR petitions (21% of total petitions) have been filed to challenge patents arising from Art Unit 1600, which examines applications directed to biotechnology and organic chemistry subject matter.  The PTAB recently instituted the third ever PGR for a biotech-related patent … Continue Reading

Post-Filing Claim Amendments Don’t Change the Effective Filing Date for Post Grant Review

By Michael Muczynski on Posted in Amendments, Institution / Denial, Post Grant Review
In considering a novel issue of Post-Grant Review (PGR) eligibility, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board followed the straightforward language of the America Invents Act (“AIA”), and longstanding precedent, holding that post-filing amendments to a pre-AIA patent application do not change its effective filing date and, thus, do not make it eligible for PGR.  David … Continue Reading

Petitioner Not Time-Barred By Service of COFC Complaint

By Ryan J. Schermerhorn on Posted in Institution / Denial, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Post Grant Review
Neither the Federal Circuit nor the PTAB has provided much guidance concerning the proper application of the one-year time-bar for filing IPRs when privity is alleged.  Recently, however, in AM General LLC v. UUSI, LLC, Case IPR2016-01049, Paper 14 (PTAB November 7, 2016), the PTAB has provided some guidance. On May 18, 2016, Petitioner AM … Continue Reading
LexBlog