Tag Archives: ipr

CAFC Eases Amendment Process In IPR Proceedings

Today in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, a fractured Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) sitting en banc decided to flip the burden of persuasion onto petitioners in IPR proceedings to show that an amendment is not patentable, removing from patent owners the burden previously placed upon them by the PTAB.  In its conclusion, the … Continue reading this entry

Pharma Patents Assigned to Indian Tribe to Thwart Inter Partes Review

As we have previously reported, sovereign immunity of state universities (who are instruments of state government) has been used to avoid IPRs under the immunity clause of the US Constitution (“Sovereign Immunity of State Universities:  Can It Shield Them From AIA Patent Challenges?” and “Are State-Owned Patents Immune From IPRs Under The 11th Amendment?“).  Now, a pharmaceutical company … Continue reading this entry

Fairness in Evaluation: Federal Circuit Remand to Board For Failure to Fully Consider Petitioner’s Arguments Against Motion to Amend

In Shinn Fu Company of America, Inc. et al. v. The Tire Hanger Corp., slip op. 2016-2250 (Fed. Cir. July 3, 1997) (non-precedential), the Federal Circuit reversed a Board’s decision granting a motion to amend claims challenged in IPR2015-00208.  During the IPR, Patent Owner Tire Hanger conceded that the original claims were unpatentable and filed … Continue reading this entry

Key Trends In Pharmaceutical IPRs Filed By Generic Petitioners

We reviewed a sub-group of two hundred and four (204) IPRs filed by generic drug companies against pharmaceutical patents to assess PTAB outcomes and key trends in dealing with this technology field. The survey captured IPR filings by fourteen (14) of the most active generic petitioners among the world’s top-20 generic drug companies.  This study … Continue reading this entry

Is The Real IPR Institution Rate Higher When Petitioner Errors & Pre-Institution Settlements Are Considered?

We have previously noted that the increasing rate of pre-institution settlement may in part be responsible for the declining institution rate in IPR proceedings because stronger petitions may drive earlier settlements, removing more effective petitions from the pool that would otherwise be instituted (“Does Spike In IPR Settlements Signify Petitioner Success?”).  Another factor that may contribute … Continue reading this entry

2017 Mid-Year Statistics Point to Continued Rise in IPR Petitions

March 31st marked the mid-point of the PTAB’s fiscal year and the release of mid-year statistics on AIA proceedings.  The full report of the mid-year statistics is found here.  One interesting trend is a continued increase in overall number of IPR petitions (mid-year there are 996 IPR petitions compared to a total of 1565 for all … Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Again Reverses PTAB Obviousness Determination

In what is becoming a familiar basis for reversal of PTAB decisions, the Federal Circuit yet again reversed the PTAB for its failure to adequately explain the basis for combining multiple prior art references in support of its conclusion of obviousness in Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.  Specifically, the Federal Circuit (Taranto, Chen, Stoll) … Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Finds IPR Petitioner Lacks Standing To Appeal

Yesterday in Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that petitioner Phigenix lacked standing to appeal an adverse final written decision in an IPR.  While acknowledging that the AIA permits a party without Article III standing to file an IPR, the Federal Circuit confirmed that the AIA does not eliminate the need for … Continue reading this entry

Reduced Scope of Post-IPR Estoppel Imperils Litigation Stays

In Depomed, Inc. v. Purdue Pharma LP et al., 3-13-cv-00571 (NJD November 4, 2016, Mem. Op. Dkt. 238) (Bongiovanni, MJ), the Court analyzed and applied recent Federal Circuit decisions limiting the scope of post-IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) to only those claims and grounds subject to a final written decision from the PTAB.  … Continue reading this entry

PTAB Post-Grant Fees Slated To Increase

The USPTO recently announced a proposed new fee schedule in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in search of revenue to recover its projected $3 billion aggregated operating costs for the 2017 fiscal year. If enacted, it would be the Office’s most significant fee adjustment since March 2013. The Office is proposing to increase 205 … Continue reading this entry

Timing Is Everything: Successful Joinder Motions At The PTAB

The joinder provisions of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings can be a great tool to circumvent the 1-year IPR filing deadline following service of a complaint for infringement. However, grant of a joinder petition by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) requires recognition that the Board is loath to delay a final hearing date … Continue reading this entry

Seeking Balance: A Review of the First 4 Years of the PTAB

Looking back on the major developments that have shaped AIA proceedings over the first four years, three sources have contributed to changes: (1) rulemaking, (2) informative decisions by the PTAB, and (3) key appellate decisions of the US Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  While a number of improvements have been … Continue reading this entry

Sovereign Immunity of State Universities: Can It Shield Them from AIA Patent Challenges?

In what appears to be a case of first impression, the PTAB is poised to rule on the question of whether state sovereign immunity prevents an IPR challenge from being maintained against a University of Florida (“UF”) patent (IPR2016-01274).  Under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution, “[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be … Continue reading this entry

Estoppel Prevents Second IPR Petition Even When New References Were Missed By First Search

In a case that appears to be a case of first impression, the PTAB found in its decision denying institution in IPR2016-00781 that a final written decision in an earlier IPR created estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1), preventing a second IPR petition from being instituted that used additional references which reasonably could have been raised before, even though … Continue reading this entry

Magnum Offers New Path for Challenging AIA Decisions: Burden of Production

Yesterday, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held in In re Magnum Oil Tools International (Newman, O’Malley & Chen) that the burden of production to show unobviousness does not shift to a patent owner based upon the Board’s institution decision.  In particular, the CAFC found that Cuozzo’s prohibition of appealing institution decisions does not prevent patent owners from … Continue reading this entry

PTAB Holds Technical Difficulties Will Not Save Late-Filed IPR Petitions

The PTAB recently stood firm in denying a petitioner’s motion to change the filing dates of two IPR petitions that missed a statutory deadline by less than ten minutes. Case IPR2016-00281 and IPR2016-00282 (Patents 8,603,514 B2 and 8,017,150 B2). The petitioner, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., was facing a 1-year statutory IPR filing deadline of December … Continue reading this entry

Survey of Pharmaceutical IPRs Filed By Generic Drug Company Petitioners

We have reviewed a sub-group of 111 IPRs filed by generic drug companies against pharmaceutical patents to assess outcomes and trends.  While our survey was not  intended to capture every IPR filed by a generic drug company,  it does cover the most active generic company filers to date (see Fig. 2 below).  Examining this particular group … Continue reading this entry

IPR PROACTIVE DEFENSE MEASURES – STRATEGIES AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR PATENT OWNERS

Many patent owners have not yet had to defend against an inter partes review (IPR), but the popularity of this proceeding increases the chances that they will encounter it down the road if they have not already faced one. This article explores IPR proactive defense measures that may be useful for patent owners to deploy … Continue reading this entry

Reading The Cuozzo Tea Leaves: Best Practices Pending The Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument today on claim construction in inter parte review (IPR) proceedings and the reviewability of institution decisions (a copy of the petition for certiorari is reported at “Supreme Court Accepts 1st IPR Appeal: Cuozzo Could Mark Turning Point for Patent Owners”). On the claim construction issue, … Continue reading this entry

Guarding Against Conclusory Statements & Why It Matters Even More Under The New PTAB Rules

A common deficiency highlighted in recent PTAB decisions denying institution of an IPR petition is that an expert declaration offers only “conclusory” statements in relation to one or more key aspects of the alleged ground of unpatentability. For example, in a decision denying institution in IPR2016-00011, the PTAB commented that “Dr. Harrigan’s opinion in this … Continue reading this entry

USPTO Releases New Rules For AIA Post-Grant Proceedings

Today the USPTO released its long-awaited package of rules for AIA post-grant proceedings. The final rules largely track the proposed rules (see “USPTO Proposes Extensive Changes to AIA Post-Grant Proceedings” to compare them), although they contain one surprise. Overall, the new rules may reduce the number of instituted IPRs and AIA proceedings by adding a … Continue reading this entry

Patent Due Diligence: All That Glitters May Not Be PTAB Gold

An obvious but sometimes overlooked item when conducting patent due diligence is to check for PTAB proceedings (CBM, IPR, or PGR). Although the Patent Application Information Retrieval System (PAIR) does show whether patents have been subjected to reexamination (by clicking on the “continuation” tab of a file displayed in PAIR), whether or not a patent … Continue reading this entry

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