PTAB

Subscribe to PTAB via RSS

In Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., Appeal Nos. 2017-1555, 217-1626 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2018), the Federal Circuit vacated the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decision in an IPR because institution of the IPR should have been time barred under 35 U.S.C. §315(b).  Additionally, the Federal Circuit declined to consider a challenge to a sanctions order by the Board because the amount of sanctions had not yet been quantified and thus the court lacked jurisdiction to review the order.  The court’s disposition of these issues remind practitioners that procedural timing is just as important as substantive argument in obtaining a desired legal outcome.
Continue Reading Successful IPR Petition Time Barred Under 35 U.S.C. §315(b) by Involuntarily Dismissed Complaint

In this informative opinion, Luv N’ Care, LTD v. McGinley, Case IPR2017-01216, Paper 13 (Sept. 18, 2017) the PTAB clarified that to be accorded a filing date, a petition must be complete, including receipt by the PTO of the petition fee for institution. As a result of a delay in payment of this fee, Luv N’ Care’s IPR petition was accorded a filing date ten days later than the date on which it filed the petition, and was ultimately barred by the one-year filing bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).Continue Reading IPR Petition Fee Must Be Received Not Merely Tendered for Petition to be Afforded a Filing Date

Update: On March 4, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the Government’s cert. petition to review the Federal Circuit’s judgment in NantKwest, Inc. v. Iancu, discussed in the post below. The Court’s docket for this case is 18-801.

In NantKwest, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 2016-1794 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 27, 2018) (en banc), the Federal Circuit decided en banc that attorneys’ fees are not “expenses” required to be paid by an applicant who appeals an ex parte prosecution case to the Eastern District of Virginia under 35 U.S.C. § 145. A Federal Circuit panel had earlier reached a contrary result, and the court sua sponte vacated the panel decision to take up the issue en banc.
Continue Reading Attorneys’ Fees Not Awardable Expenses in Section 145 Actions

Update: On November 1, 2018, the CAFC issued a modified opinion and an order denying Contour’s petition for rehearing en banc.  The modified opinion is consistent with the original petition, discussed below, insofar as the PTAB decision was vacated and remanded, but adds the following statement at page 8: “When direct availability to an ordinarily skilled artisan is no longer viewed as dispositive, the undisputed record evidence compels a conclusion that the GoPro Catalog is a printed publication as a matter of law.”  The modified opinion also deleted the following statements, parts of which were quoted in the blog, below: “Contrary to the Board’s conclusion, the attendees attracted to the show were likely more sophisticated and involved in the extreme action vehicle space than an average consumer. Thus, it is more likely than not that persons ordinarily skilled and interested in POV action cameras were in attendance or at least knew about the trade show and expected to find action sports cameras at the show. While the Board found that GoPro did not provide any evidence as to what products the companies at the trade show make, GoPro was not the only manufacturer of POV action cameras. The vendor list provided with Mr. Jones’s declaration listed a number of vendors who likely sell, produce and/or have a professional interest in digital video cameras.”

In a previous blog post, we reported that in a final written decision on October 26, 2016, the PTAB concluded that GoPro, Inc. (GoPro) failed to demonstrate that the challenged claims in a patent owned by Contour IP Holding LLC (Contour) were unpatentable. IPR (IPR2015-01080; “the GoPro IPR”)  GoPro asserted that the challenged claims were unpatentable in view of, among other references, a GoPro product catalog that included information for a digital video camera.Continue Reading Tradeshow Catalog Qualifies as Prior Art

In Praxair Distrib. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Pdts., (Fed. Circ. May 16, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s application of the printed matter doctrine in an IPR, and determined that all challenged claims were obvious.

Mallinckrodt’s patent is directed to methods of treating newborns having low blood oxygenation with nitric oxide (NO) gas, “to dilate blood vessels in the lungs and … thereby improve blood oxygenation.” Generally, the claims recite methods of providing medical providers with NO gas, and information relating to treatment with NO.
Continue Reading PTAB Properly Applied the Printed Matter Doctrine

Despite disagreeing with the PTAB’s preferred claim construction, the Federal Circuit in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC, Case No. 2016-1249 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 20, 2018) nevertheless determined that the PTAB had correctly canceled the challenged claims.

The Board had offered two, alternative rulings invalidating all claims on obviousness grounds. In its primary ruling, the Board construed the claims after rejecting the argument that a disclaimer was made during prosecution.
Continue Reading PTAB Was Wrong to Ignore an Applicant’s Prosecution Disclaimer Because of Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance

Update: The Supreme Court issued a decision on April 20, 2020  holding that the patent statute (35 U.S.C. § 314(d)) bars judicial review of a PTAB decision of whether an inter partes review petition is time-barred pursuant to 35 USC 315(b). As stated by the Court, the PTAB’s “application of §315(b)’s time limit, we hold, is closely related to its decision whether to institute inter partes review and is therefore rendered nonappealable by§314(d).”

**********

Update: The Supreme Court issued an order on June 24, 2019, granting a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Federal Circuit’s judgment in Dex Media, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP,  899 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Court will decide “[w]hether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) permits appeal of the PTAB’s decision to institute an inter partes review upon finding that § 315(b)’s time bar did not apply.” The Court’s docket number for this case is 18-916, and its decision may be expected during the October 2019 term.

**********

Original Post: The Federal Circuit recently held that the statutory time bar in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) precludes the PTAB from deciding an IPR petition filed more than one year after any of the petitioners have been served with a complaint alleging patent infringement, even if that complaint was voluntarily dismissed. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc., et al., Case no. 2015-1242, 2018 WL 3893119 (Fed. Cir. Aug 16, 2018).
Continue Reading One Year Time Bar Runs from Date of Service, Regardless of Whether Suit is Dismissed

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 Time v. RPX Corp., Nos. 2017-1698, -1699, -1701, Slip Op. at 14 n.2 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2018). The update revises six sections of the guide, including sections focused on the presentation of expert testimony, the Board’s considerations in instituting review, and briefing concerning evidentiary issues and claim amendments.
Continue Reading Trial Practice Guide Updates and Future Fee Increases

In TF3 Ltd. v. Tre Milano, LLC, Appeal 2016-2285 (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2018), the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final written decision canceling claims directed to a hair styling device as anticipated by prior art.  The court concluded that the Board improperly broadened two claim terms beyond the description in the patent specification.  Using the correct claim construction, the court concluded that prior art does not anticipate the claims.  In part, the court relied upon the abbreviation “i.e.” in determining the proper scope of the claim terms. 
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Reverses, i.e. Overturns, Board’s Anticipation Decision Due to Overbroad Claim Construction

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed the PTAB’s decision that tribal immunity cannot be asserted in an IPR (Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharma Inc., Case No. 2018-1638 (Fed. Cir. July 20, 2018). On appeal, Allergan, Inc. (“Allergan”) argued that the Board improperly denied its motion to withdraw from IPR proceedings, and the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (“the Tribe”) argued that the Board improperly denied its motion to terminate the IPR based on sovereign immunity. See Mylan Pharma Inc. v. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, Case IPR2016-01127, Paper 130 (February 23, 2018) (discussed here).
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Affirms Tribal Sovereign Immunity Does Not Apply to IPR

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.