PTAB

Subscribe to PTAB via RSS

Pen poised to sign a declaration. Classic silver and gold ballpoint, shallow depth of field.

If you rely in an IPR on a declaration submitted during prosecution, the PTAB may give it little or no weight if your opponent cannot cross-examine the declarant.

In Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. INO Therapeutics LLC, the PTAB instituted inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,846,112, directed to methods of providing nitric oxide gas for treating newborn children suffering from hypoxia.

In response, the Patent Owner relied not only on a supporting expert declaration, but also on three declarations submitted during prosecution of the ’112 patent.
Continue Reading PTAB Warns Again That Prosecution Declarations Without Depositions May Be Given Little or No Weight

Evidence Dice Representing Evidential Substantiation and Proof

In Merck & CIE v. Gnosis S.P.A., Gnosis Bioresearch S.A., Gnosis U.S.A. Inc., Case No. 2014-1779 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2015), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision that the contested claims were invalid for obviousness, determining that the Board’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence, and agreeing with the Board’s conclusion of obviousness.  However, in dissent, Judge Newman asserted that the Federal Circuit’s substantial evidence standard of review for the Board’s factual findings in AIA trial decisions is not appropriate under the AIA, and that based on a review without deference, the Board’s decision in this case should be reversed.
Continue Reading Dissent: “Deferential review by the Federal Circuit falls short”

re-do written by a man over white background

In issuing a second final decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn Inc., IPR2012-00026/ IPR2013-00109, Paper No. 80 (Dec. 9, 2015), the PTAB dealt with a “what do we do now,” both procedurally and substantively, after its initial final decision was reversed in part and remanded “for further proceedings” by the Federal Circuit in an opinion available at 789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Federal Circuit’s partial reversal and remand stemmed from its conclusion that the PTAB, in its initial final decision, construed two claim terms too broadly and employed that misconstruction in finding claims of the patent at issue invalid. Our prior discussion of the Federal Circuit decision is at this link.
Continue Reading PTAB Confronts Issues Raised By IPR Remand From Federal Circuit

Getting LuckyIn SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2015-1159, -1160 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2015), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decisions in two CBM patent review proceedings that canceled claims in SightSound’s patents as being obvious over prior art (referred to as the CompuSonics publications), even though Apple did not present that specific challenge in its petitions. The Federal Circuit’s decision is important because it shows that the court will not review a PTAB decision to institute an AIA trial on a ground the petitioner did not present.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Victory on Invalidity Ground the Petition Did Not Even Present

EPO FlagsTwo recent PTAB final written decisions illustrate the difficulty in convincing the PTAB to grant a motion to exclude evidence, in particular on the grounds of relevance, more particularly for evidence submitted in support of a party’s claim construction position.
Continue Reading Evidence From Prosecution and District Courts Not Excluded

Person writing on a clipboard form with a pen. Could be giving feedback or completing a surveyUpdate: Overruled in part by Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal.  In a subsequent order, the court vacated the portions of the panel’s and the PTAB’s decisions concerning the patent owner’s motion to amend, and remanded the case to the PTAB for proceedings consistent with the Aqua Products decision.

In December 4, 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed in a split opinion the Board’s final written decision in ScentAir Techs., Inc. v. Prolitec, Inc., IPR2013-00179, finding that the two claims of Prolitec’s U.S. Patent No. 7,712,683 (“’683 patent”) were unpatentable and denying Prolitec’s motion to amend.  Although several issues were addressed by the Board and Federal Circuit, perhaps of most interest is the court’s conclusion that the Board properly denied Prolitec’s motion to amend because Prolitic did not demonstrate patentability of the substitute claim over prior art of record during prosecution of the patent. 
Continue Reading Federal Circuit: Patent Owners Must Consider Prior Art from Prosecution History in Motion to Amend

brown gavel and open book on a wooden table of the law in the courtroom

The Federal Circuit rejected a patentee’s appeal arguing that inter partes review is unconstitutional for violating Article III and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.  MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 2015-1091 (Fed. Cir. December 2, 2015).  The precedential decision affirms the PTAB’s authority to adjudicate the validity of issued patents.
Continue Reading CAFC Confirms Constitutionality of Inter Partes Review

In a decision last week, the Federal Circuit remanded for further consideration the Board’s final written decision concluding that the challenged claims of Verinata Health, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 8,318,430 were not obvious. See Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health,Inc., Case No. 2015-1215, 2015-1226 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2015). The Board’s conclusion was based, in part, on its decision to accord no weight to an aspect of declaration testimony the Petitioner (Ariosa) offered in support of its reply brief.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Weighs in on Use of Evidence Cited in a Reply

Tug of WarIf you’re a patent owner faced with an expert declaration submitted by an IPR petitioner on reply, try to respond, and in multiple ways. Don’t just complain that the declaration should be excluded. This was the Federal Circuit’s recent message in Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC. 
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Tells Patent Owners That They Can’t Get It If They Don’t Ask For It

Frustrated ReasoningThe PTAB recently issued an order applying the estoppel provision of the AIA (35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1)) to dismiss a petitioner from covered business method (CBM) patent review proceedings a few days before a consolidated final hearing. Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, CBM2015-00015, Paper 49 (PTAB Nov. 4, 2015) (common order involving CBM2015-00016 and CBM2015-00018). The order is significant because it offers guidance on how the PTAB interprets this provision and applies it to decide whether a petitioner “reasonably could have raised” a patentability challenge clarified by a Supreme Court decision that was not available during an earlier CBM proceeding involving the same parties, the same patent, and the same claims.
Continue Reading PTAB Refuses to Terminate AIA Trial Despite Applying the Estoppel Provision to Dismiss the Petitioner

Resources & Info

Arthrex and the Supreme Court Resource Center

In United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the Supreme Court has heard whether 125+ PTAB decisions rendered through October 2019 must be remanded for new decisions. Read about how that issue developed through our post.

Learn more

Our Team

PTABWatch, provided by Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, analyzes and reports recent developments concerning Post-Grant Proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), including Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR), and Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings.