The PTAB’s recent decision on remand in Corning Optical Comm. v. PPC Broadband (IPR2013-00342, Paper No. 57), and the related decision on appeal (815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), serve as a reminder that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard does not permit an unreasonably broad construction.
In addition, the PTAB’s related order (see Paper 55), denying the parties’ requests for further briefing on remand, indicates that, when the Federal Circuit bases its claim construction on a party’s construction advanced during an earlier proceeding before the PTAB, the PTAB may choose to base its remand decision on the arguments and evidence in the record, without need for further briefing.
Continue Reading PTAB Upholds Claims Under Narrowed BRI Construction on Remand
On May 20, 2016, the 
Update: The Supreme Court issued a 
As the patent community anxiously awaits the PTAB’s decision concerning whether the Coalition For Affordable Drugs (CFAD) should be sanctioned for filing an IPR petition against a Celgene patent¹, the PTAB recently denied institution of two IPR petitions² the CFAD filed concerning two Acorda patents that cover Ampyra, a billion-dollar drug for treating multiple sclerosis. The CFAD is a wholly owned subsidiary of a hedge fund managed by Kyle Bass and, since February 2015, Bass and the CFAD have filed twenty nine IPR petitions against more than twenty patents different patents belonging to at least fifteen different companies. 
In several recent decisions, the PTAB has clarified the standing required to file petitions seeking Covered Business Method review. Under the AIA, standing to seek Covered Business Method review is limited to those charged with infringement and their “privies.” “Privies,” however, do not encompass merely any party with whom the petitioner is in “privity.” “Privies” is effectively synonymous with “customers”– and, not merely any customers, but customers who the petitioner is legally obligated to indemnify for their alleged infringement. 
Whether a non-identified party is a real party-in-interest to a proceeding is a highly fact-dependent question. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Trial Practice Guide”) (citing Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008)). “A common consideration is whether the non-party exercised or could have exercised control over a party’s participation in a proceeding.” Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,759 (citing Taylor, 553 U.S. at 895).