Standing

Subscribe to Standing via RSS

Closeup of hands on clock face

Neither the Federal Circuit nor the PTAB has provided much guidance concerning the proper application of the one-year time-bar for filing IPRs when privity is alleged.  Recently, however, in AM General LLC v. UUSI, LLC, Case IPR2016-01049, Paper 14 (PTAB November 7, 2016), the PTAB has provided some guidance.

On May 18, 2016, Petitioner AM General LLC filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of various claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,570,666 (“the ‘666 Patent”).  In its Preliminary Response to the Petition, filed on August 19, 2016, the Patent Owner, UUSI, LLC, urged denial of the Petition, contending the petition was time barred. 
Continue Reading Petitioner Not Time-Barred By Service of COFC Complaint

Portrait of young handsome businessman with closed eyes and fingers in ears, not listening, isolated on gray

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).”

**********

An updated discussion of this issue is available here: Federal Circuit to Take AIA Time Bar Issue En Banc

Original Post: The Federal Circuit has again concluded it may not review the PTAB’s institution of inter partes review (IPR) over a patent owner’s objections that the IPR petition is time-barred. Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., Appeal 2015-1944 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 16, 2016). The court’s conclusion may be somewhat surprising because earlier this summer, in another case, the Supreme Court issued an order vacating the Federal Circuit’s decision that reached a similar conclusion. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Oracle Corp., 622 Fed. Appx. 907 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (per curiam), vacated, 136 S. Ct. 2508 (Mem) (2016). We discussed that case and the Court’s order here.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Again Refuses to Review PTAB’s Application of the Time Bar to AIA Petitions

[url=file_closeup.php?id=84174875] [img]file_thumbview_approve/84174875/2/[/img] [url=file_closeup.php?id=62711664] [img]file_thumbview_approve/62711664/2/[/img] [url=file_closeup.php?id=59795748] [img]file_thumbview_approve/59795748/2/[/img] [url=file_closeup.php?id=21984986] [img]file_thumbview_approve/21984986/2/[/img] [url=file_closeup.php?id=41886470] [img]file_thumbview_approve/41886470/2/[/img] [url=file_closeup.php?id=41880126] [img]file_thumbview_approve/41880126/2/[/img] [url=file_closeup.php?id=41882644] [img]file_thumbview_approve/41882644/2/[/img] [url=/search/lightbox/5542306] - the Capitol LB - [img]/file_thumbview_approve/6581839/2/[/img]

In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, the Supreme Court recognized that a “district court may find a patent claim to be valid, and the agency may later cancel that claim in its own review.”  The Court also recognized that because of the different evidentiary burdens in court versus before the agency—the Patent Office—“the possibility of inconsistent results is inherent to Congress’[s] regulatory design.” Is that inconsistency sensible? As good a case as any to consider that question involves a global pharmaceutical company, one of its top-selling drug products, and a patent it owns that covers the administration of that drug product.
Continue Reading The Possibility of Inconsistent Results Inherent to Congress’s Design of AIA Trial Reviews

Dollar SignsIf a patented mobile phone app can locate a nearby ATM machine, are the claims of that patent subject to CBM review because ATMs are used in financial transactions? What if the claim could cover a business entity that, incidentally, might also push advertisements to a mobile phone? Is it enough that a claim is merely “incidental to” a financial product or service, or, must a claim actually require that something be used to practice, administer, or manage a financial product or service? These are central questions currently under consideration at the CAFC in Unwired Planet LLC v. Google Inc., Nos. 15-1810 and 15-1812 (audio recordings). The PTAB found these facts sufficiently supported CBM review.  However, during recent oral arguments on appeal, the judges of the CAFC panel seemed skeptical, focusing on the text of the underlying statute and its implementing rules.
Continue Reading For CBM Standing, Is “Incidental To” a Financial Product or Service Enough?

MapUpdate: 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).”

**********

Original Post: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently designated five opinions as “precedential.” Each of these opinions addresses procedural aspects of AIA proceedings, including requests for additional discovery, the one-year time period for filing a petition, amending claims, and requirements for PTAB consideration of a petition. A summary of each opinion follows.
Continue Reading PTAB Provides Procedural Guidance with Five Precedential Opinions

stamp denied with red text on whiteAs 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. 
Continue Reading PTAB Denies Institution of Two IPR Petitions Filed by Hedge Fund

Line of business people in profileIn 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. 
Continue Reading Suppliers Can Lack Standing to Seek CBM Review on Behalf of Customers

The PTAB granted leave on June 9 for the patent owner, Celgene Corporation, to file a motion for sanctions seeking dismissal in several IPRs¹ filed by the Coalition for Affordable Drugs. The Coalition for Affordable Drugs, an organization created by the hedge fund Hayman Credes Master Fund L.P., has filed multiple IPRs against pharmaceutical companies with the publicly announced intention to lower drug prices for everyone by invalidating patent protections that it contends have little value.
Continue Reading Is the Coalition for Affordable Drugs Abusing the IPR Process?

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.