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
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. “
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 
Welcome to all of you who are new readers joining us from the IPO Annual Meeting (#IPOAM15). I hope that your time in Chicago was enjoyable and that you will add us to your RSS feeds or bookmark the blog and return often. For those who were unable to attend, the Tuesday panel titled “Post Grant Proceedings at the USPTO” offered a wide-ranging, lively discussion of the current state of post-grant proceedings and proposed solutions to perceived weaknesses in the current system.
e, then, when on a single day, September 16, 2015, petitioners went an incredible 0 for 5—the PTAB denied five petitions for IPR and granted none! It seemed like a statistical improbability. Maybe a signal that the tides have turned for patent challengers? 
Petitioners should beware gaps in their evidence and reasoning. Two DepoMed patents recently survived their second IPR challenge because the petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof. The PTAB rejected petitioner’s obviousness arguments as “overly vague and nonspecific,” concluding that petitioner failed to “explain persuasively why or how a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify the drug formulation” of the prior art to develop the claimed formulation, and failed to show a reasonable expectation of success.