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
PTAB Denies Petitioner’s Request to Terminate IPR Two Months After Institution Decision
The PTAB denied a Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a motion to terminate an IPR without a final written decision, made only two months after the Board issued a decision instituting the IPR. Masterimage 3D, Inc. v. Reald Inc., Case IPR2015-00035, Paper No. 30 (June 25, 2015).
After institution of an IPR but before the Patent Owner had filed a response, the Petitioner Masterimage 3D, Inc. sought permission to request adverse judgment and termination of the IPR, to avoid the estoppel effects of a final written decision. The Patent Owner opposed this request, on the basis that it desires the Petitioner to be bound by estoppel effects of a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e); and because the Patent Owner may file a motion to amend in the proceeding.
Continue Reading PTAB Denies Petitioner’s Request to Terminate IPR Two Months After Institution Decision
Will Anyone Succeed on a Request for Rehearing of a Final Written Decision?
Although parties continue to file Requests for Rehearing of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision, none have yet succeeded in changing the outcome. According to Docket Navigator (www.docketnavigator.com), to date, 19 motions for rehearing of the Final Written Decision have been filed. Only one, in McLinton Energy Group, LLC v. Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd., IPR 2013-00231, has been granted. Unfortunately for the patent owner in that case, although the request for rehearing was granted and the Board agreed to reconsider its Final Decision, it ultimately declined to make any modification.
Continue Reading Will Anyone Succeed on a Request for Rehearing of a Final Written Decision?
Footnote on Claim Amendment More Interesting than Federal Circuit Holding?
Last Tuesday, for the first time ever, the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB in an IPR decision by, among other things, ratcheting back the “broadest reasonable construction” standard for claim construction by declaring the PTAB’s construction “unreasonable.” 
The Court said that, “[e]ven under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the board’s construction ‘cannot be divorced from the specification and the record evidence,’ and ‘must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.’” Microsoft v. Proxyconn, 2014-1542, -1543 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) (“A construction that is ‘unreasonably broad’ and which does not ‘reasonably reflect the plain language and disclosure will not pass muster’”) (internal citations omitted).
Continue Reading Footnote on Claim Amendment More Interesting than Federal Circuit Holding?
Evidence of Denial of IPR Institution Allowed in District Court Infringement Action
On June 19, 2015 the District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Defendants’ motion in limine requesting the exclusion of evidence relating to a denial of an IPR institution from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Stoneeagle Services, Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc. et al, 8-13-cv-02240 (FL MD)). This decision contradicts recent decisions in other jurisdictions in which the results of IPR decisions have not been allowed in District Court actions (see Interdigital Commc’ns, Inc. v. Nokia Corp., No. 13-10-RGA,2014 WL 8104167 (D. Del. Sept. 19, 2014) and Ultratec, Inc. et al. v. Sorenson Communications, Inc., No. 3:13-CV-00346 (W.D. Wisc. Oct. 8, 2014 ).
Continue Reading Evidence of Denial of IPR Institution Allowed in District Court Infringement Action
Patent Dispute Reform Legislation Is Now Pending in Both Houses of Congress
The House of Representative’s Innovation Act, H.R. 9, was voted to the House floor for further consideration on June 11, by a 24-8 vote of its Judiciary Committee, after the Senate’s PATENT Act, S. 1137, was voted to the Senate floor on June 4 by a 16-4 vote of its Judiciary Committee. See prior entry, “PTAB Review Reform in Bill Approved by Senate Committee.” Both bills target abusive litigation tactics and post-grant proceedings, IPRs and PGRs.
Notably, amendments were introduced to H.R. 9 to prevent the types of IPRs filed by Kyle Bass-type hedge funds for monetary gain, and to permit the patent owner to support its preliminary response with new declaration evidence.
Continue Reading Patent Dispute Reform Legislation Is Now Pending in Both Houses of Congress
Federal Circuit Upholds PTAB’s Application of its Rules to Decide Motions to Amend
Update: Overruled in part byAqua Products, Inc. v. Matal.
Earlier this week, we wrote about the post-hearing briefing the Federal Circuit invited in Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., Case Nos. 2014-1542, -1543, Dkt. 49 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 13, 2015), and the questions it posed regarding the PTAB’s administration of inter partes review. The court issued its decision in that case yesterday, answering some of the questions it posed and, for the first time, reversed a PTAB claim construction, vacated the PTAB’s decision of unpatentability, and remanded the IPR for further proceedings.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Upholds PTAB’s Application of its Rules to Decide Motions to Amend
Federal Circuit Expected to Provide Guidance on PTAB Claim Amendment Procedures
Following oral argument in an appeal of an IPR in which the PTAB canceled a number of challenged claims and denied the Patent Owner’s motions to amend, the Federal Circuit requested additional briefing from the parties and the Director of the USPTO (Intervenor), concerning interpretation of the PTAB rule for filing motions to amend during an IPR, 37 CFR § 42.121. Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., Case Nos. 2014-1542, -1543, Dkt. 49 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 13, 2015). The questions raised by the Federal Circuit panel suggest that the Court is likely to provide guidance on the PTAB’s claim amendment procedures when it issues its decision in the appeal.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Expected to Provide Guidance on PTAB Claim Amendment Procedures
PTAB Allows Motion to Amend After it Rejects Original Patent Claims Directed to BioDiesel Fuel
On June 5, 2015, the Board issued a final written decision in Reg Synthetic Fuels Llc, V.Neste Oil Oyj, IPR2014-00192, rejecting all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,278,492, but confirming the patentability of substitute claims submitted by Patent Owner.
The ‘492 patent is directed to a process for the manufacture of biodiesel fuel comprised of hydrocarbons from bio oils and fats. The ’492 patent discloses a two-step process in which a feed stream of biological origin, diluted with a hydrocarbon, is first hydrodeoxygenated, and then isomerized. According to the ’492 patent, deoxygenation via hydrogenolysis requires a large amount of hydrogen, and releases a significant amount of heat that must be dissipated. To avoid these problems, the patented process “spikes” the feed stream with sulfur to favor the decarboxylation/decarbonylation reaction pathways.Continue Reading PTAB Allows Motion to Amend After it Rejects Original Patent Claims Directed to BioDiesel Fuel