Category Archives: PTAB Decisions

Subscribe to PTAB Decisions RSS Feed

The Latest Twist In The Apple v. VirnetX IPRs: Appeals Court Issues Temporary Stay

On March 7, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued a temporary stay to permit briefing by the parties on the question of whether the PTAB properly ruled that Apple could use the joinder process in Mangrove Capital’s IPR against VirnetX to avoid the one-year bar that prevents a litigation defendant like Apple from filing its own … Continue reading this entry

VirnetX Faces Follow-on IPR Petition from a Different Petitioner After Settling Previously Instituted IPR

In IPR2014-00614, Microsoft filed a petition for IPR against US Patent No. 7,418,504 (“the ‘504 patent) owned by VirnetX, which was instituted based upon anticipation grounds over Kiuchi (see institution decision).  This IPR later settled, and the PTAB granted termination before a final written decision.  Yesterday, a new entity (Black Swamp IP, LLC) filed a petition … Continue reading this entry

PTAB Institutes Trial On Previously Challenged Cabilly Patent

The Cabilly ’415 patent is well known in the bio/pharma space as relating to the artificial synthesis of antibody molecules. The Cabilly ‘415 patent’s notoriety was aided by a previous interference, a merged ex parte reexamination proceeding, and several Federal District Court Litigations. Nevertheless, Petitioners Sanofi-Aventis and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals petitioned for inter partes review (IPR2015-01624), … Continue reading this entry

High Stakes Race Between Apple and VirnetX: Will PTAB Trump The Texas Jury's Award of $625M?

A Texas jury today raised the stakes even higher in a race involving parallel proceedings between the PTAB and Texas district court when it found that Apple infringed the VirnetX patents and awarded to VirnetX $625M in damages. While the Texas jury found the patents to be valid and infringed in today’s verdict, the PTAB … Continue reading this entry

Split Federal Circuit Upholds Constitutionality of Single PTAB Panels Rendering Both Institution & Final Written Decisions

On January 13, 2016, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the PTAB in Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP, IPR2013-00209, that all of the claims of U.S. Patent 8,317,070 are obvious. While the obviousness analysis in both the PTAB decision and the subsequent appeal were unremarkable, the Federal Circuit’s decision was nevertheless precedential for … Continue reading this entry

Denying Prior Art Status In PTAB Proceedings: Petitioner's Failure to Show Section 112 Support in Priority Applications May Be Fatal

Several of our recent posts have discussed petitioners’ use of priority denial to attack patents with intervening prior art, but the issue of adequate support in an earlier filed application may also work in reverse against the petitioner when the prior art relied upon is a published patent application or granted patent with multiple filing … Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Backs PTAB Decision Curtailing A Party's Use Of "Supplemental" Information

In Redline Detection v. Star Envirotech, the Federal Circuit confirmed that the PTAB can decline to consider timely filed “supplemental” information from a petitioner (after filing its petition) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a). While some PTAB decisions have permitted very limited use of Rule 123(a) by petitioners to supplement their petition after an institution … Continue reading this entry

Use of Priority Denial to Subject Apparent "Pre-AIA" Patents to PGR: Inguran v. Premium Genetics

A recent decision by the PTAB, Inguran v. Premium Genetics, demonstrates that a Petitioner may subject an apparent “pre-AIA” patent, having at least one priority date before and at least one priority date after March 16, 2012, to the post-grant review (PGR) process. By arguing that at least one claim is not entitled to the … Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB's IPR Decision Invalidating A Pharmaceutical Patent

Today in Merck v. Gnosis, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s IPR Decision finding a pharmaceutical patent invalid for obviousness. Justice Newman vigorously dissented from the majority’s view (Justices Hughes and Plager) that a “substantial evidence” standard should apply to review of PTAB IPR decisions, which may encourage the patent owner to pursue a request … Continue reading this entry

PTAB Refuses To Sanction Kyle Bass

Many pharmaceutical companies have complained about the IPR petitions filed by Kyle Bass and the Coalition for Affordable Drugs against Orange Book-listed patents covering approved pharmaceutical products, but Celgene Corp. took more serious action, and filed motions for sanctions in the IPRs launched against its patents relating to Thalomid® (thalidomide) and Revlamid® (lenalidomide). However, the USPTO Patent … Continue reading this entry

Estoppel Versus Discretion: How is the PTAB Deciding Multiple Petitions Against the Same Patent?

The PTAB has denied petitions filed by the same petitioner against the same claims, even where the subsequent petition relied upon completely different prior art (IPR2014-00506), reasoning that a petitioner should not hold back its best references for a subsequent attempt.  But what happens when the same petitioner files a new petition (after a first petition is denied) against … Continue reading this entry

Clinical Trials as Prior Art: PTAB Denies Bass IPR Petition With Only a "Hope" of Efficacy

By Shaun R. Snader[1] & Stephen B. Maebius In the most recent loss for Kyle Bass’ hedge fund in IPR proceedings, the Board denied institution of an IPR based on a petition filed by Coalition for Affordable Drugs V LLC (CFAD) against Biogen MA Inc. IPR2015-01136, Paper 23 (Sept. 2, 2015).  The Board (per Judge McKelvey) … Continue reading this entry

PTAB Requests Additional Briefing on Hedge Fund IPR Questions: A Decision May Be Near

On Sept. 1, 2015, the PTAB issued an order in Coalition for Affordable Drugs (CFAD) v. NPS Pharmaceuticals for the parties to brief the following questions in seven business days: “1) the standing requirement for challenging the validity of that patent in an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 311(a);… Continue reading this entry

PTAB Denies Institution of Kyle Bass IPRs -- But Not for Improper Purpose

The USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued it first institution decisions on IPR petitions filed by Kyle Bass and his Coalition for Affordable Drugs, denying institution of his challenges to two Orange-book listed patents for Ampyra. Many were watching to see if the PTAB would render a decision based on the “improper purpose” … Continue reading this entry

Will New PTAB Rules Impact IPRs Filed By Kyle Bass Hedge Fund?

On August 19th, the USPTO released a new set of proposed rules related to post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Among the many offered rules was the addition of a “Rule 11-type certification” for all papers filed with the PTAB. Such a provision would provide for sanctions for noncompliant practitioners and parties … Continue reading this entry

Lessons Learned From the 1st Successful Pharmaceutical IPR Defense of Orange Book Listed Patents

In three petitions filed on the same day in 2013, styled Amneal v. Supernus, Amneal filed what appears to be the first challenge of Orange Book listed pharmaceutical patents that led to institution followed by a final decision in which the patent owner prevailed.[1]  Several lessons are apparent from a review of the first successful defense … Continue reading this entry

An Invalidity Argument Without a Home? The PTAB's Discretion to Ignore Grounds for Invalidity

By Shaun R. Snader[1] & George C. Beck The post-grant proceedings established by the America Invents Act – inter partes review (IPR), covered business method (CBM) review, and post-grant review (PGR) –promise faster, less expensive results as compared to district court litigation, and an adjudicative body with expertise in patent law. A significant tradeoff to these … Continue reading this entry

Does Spike In IPR Settlements Signify Petitioner Success?

The most recent IPR statistics have shown a sharp increase in the number of settlements, both before and after institution decisions, as revealed in the following chart. What is most remarkable is the huge spike in settlements prior to institution.  In fiscal year 2015, the number of pre-institution settlements (217) has more than doubled from the prior … Continue reading this entry

Bio/Pharma IPR Challenges Nearly Double in 2015

Newly released statistics (2015-06-30 PTAB Statistics) from the USPTO reveal that the number of bio/pharma IPR challenges almost doubled in 2015, even though fiscal year 2015 still has three months to go. Last year, there were only 66 bio/pharma IPR petitions filed. This fiscal year, so far 113 bio/pharma IPR petitions have been filed as of June 30th.… Continue reading this entry

Attacking Patents on Written Description & Enablement Grounds in Inter Partes Review

Although Inter Partes Review (IPR) is limited to grounds of unpatentability based upon prior art references, it is nevertheless possible to raise issues of written description or enablement by applying intervening prior art that is published between two priority dates for a claimed invention. Such intervening prior art may even be applied between two filing dates created … Continue reading this entry