In April, the USPTO released the results of a study on claim amendments in AIA proceedings. The study showed that of 118 Motions to Amend Claims filed at the PTAB, just six had been granted. The abysmal success rate of patent owners seeking to amend claims (just 5% by the PTO’s own numbers) has been a source of strong criticism of the PTAB.
For patent owners searching for a successful amendment strategy, we’ve collected the allowed claim amendments from those six successful motions to amend at the PTAB, which are presented below: Continue reading Successful Motions to Amend Claims at the PTAB
In the vast majority of depositions taken pursuant to an inter partes review, the deponent will have previously provided direct testimony via a declaration. The typical IPR deposition is therefore an opportunity for an opposing party to cross examine the witness, and the PTAB has set the standard duration of cross examination at seven hours. 37 C.F.R. 42.53(c)(2) (further providing four hours for re-direct examination and two hours for re-cross examination).
The seven-hour cross examination rule does contemplate extending the duration of a deposition, as may be “stipulated by the parties or ordered by the Board.” Id. Where each party retains an expert fact witness in an IPR, it can be mutually beneficial for the parties to stipulate to extended depositions. In one extreme case, the parties agreed to stipulated extensions such that the deposition of a single witness extended over a five-day period. Continue reading Extending Depositions in IPRs
Earlier this month the Federal Circuit granted en banc review of the PTAB’s process for reviewing Motions to Amend Claims in AIA proceedings. In the case In re Aqua Products, the patent owner argues that it met the statutory requirements for making a claim amendment but the PTAB failed to enter the amendment based on a erroneous interpretation of the statute which results in additional, onerous requirements being levied on a patent owner. Continue reading Federal Circuit to Review PTAB’s Amendment Practice
The Supreme Court recently affirmed that a decision by the PTAB regarding institution of an inter partes review is “final and nonappealable.” Cuozzo Speed Tech. v. Lee, No. 15-466, slip op. at 7 (U.S. June 20, 2016); see 35 U.S.C. §314(d). Without the ability to appeal an institution decision, a dissatisfied party is often left to file a request for rehearing with the Board. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Continue reading Rehearing an Institution Decision
When a patent or patent family is subject to multiple validity challenges, a petitioner in an inter partes review may seek to assert collateral estoppel to preclude relitigation of issues decided in a previous proceeding. Collateral estoppel, which is also called issue preclusion, is appropriate where: “(1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) [the party against whom issue preclusion is asserted] had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Collateral estoppel is “premised on principles of fairness,” which leaves considerable latitude to the PTAB in deciding whether to apply the doctrine. Continue reading Collateral Estoppel in an IPR
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently designated two opinions as precedential, which are two of the only three precedential opinions in America Invents Act (AIA) reviews up to today. The precedential status means that these opinions are binding precedents that the PTAB judges must follow in the future.
The first opinion, LG Electronics Inc. v. Mondis Tech Ltd. (IPR2015-00937, Sept. 17, 2015), is related to the one-year bar date for filing an inter partes review (IPR). Based on 35 U.S.C §315(b), an IPR is barred if it is filed more than one year after a petitioner is “served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent” (emphasis added). The question is which complaint should be the basis for the one year deadline if several complaints are served. Continue reading PTAB’s Two Precedential Opinions and Impact of Previous Proceeding on AIA Reviews
In a previous post, we discussed the “shifting burdens” framework outlined by the Federal Circuit in Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., for demonstrating a prior art reference’s entitlement to a provisional priority date. (See our post here. See also Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
In a pair of recent decisions, the PTAB has adopted the shifting burdens framework to new issues, such as whether a reference is precluded from use in an obviousness rejection under the common ownership exception of 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1). See, e.g., Global Tel*Link Corp. v. Securus Techs., Inc., IPR2014-00825, Paper 36 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2015); Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2014-00552, Paper 79 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2015). Continue reading Patent Owner Challenges Based on Common Ownership of Prior Art (§ 103(c)(1))
Relying on the priority date of a provisional patent application has been problematic for some Petitioners in Inter Partes Reviews. However, the Federal Circuit and the PTAB have recently issued decisions which provide guidance for using provisional patent applications in IPRs. Continue reading Provisional Applications as Prior Art in Inter Partes Reviews
Earlier this month the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review decision for just the second time ever. Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, Case No. 2014-1575 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2015). The court found that the PTAB did not invalidate enough claims of the challenged patent, resulting in yet another win for an IPR petitioner at the appellate level. Continue reading Federal Circuit Issues Second-Ever IPR Reversal, But Petitioner Still Wins
A recent decision at the PTAB highlights one of the difficulties faced by parties and practitioners before the Board: the potential for conflicting decisions in a forum where almost nothing is considered precedential.
Earlier this month an expanded panel re-visited the question of whether a Petitioner may join its own previously-instituted Petition for Inter Partes Review. Consistent with earlier decisions, this expanded panel concluded that so-called “issue joinder” (the same party joining new issues to an instituted petition) is permissible under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd. v. Nidec Motor Corp., IPR2015-00762 (PTAB October 5, 2015) (Paper 16). Continue reading Lack of Precedent at PTAB Can Lead to Conflicting Panel Decisions