Tag Archives: ipr

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

Federal Circuit Sanctions PTO’s Authority To Institute IPR On A Claim-By-Claim Basis in Synopsis v. Mentor Graphics

In Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., a split panel of the Federal Circuit found “that there is no statutory requirement that the Board’s final decision address every claim raised in a petition for inter partes review.” Appeal Nos. 2014-1516, 2014-1530, slip op. at 12 (Feb. 10, 2016). The panel majority held that 35 U.S.C. … 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

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

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

Proposed Rule Changes For IPR Appeals

On December 3, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued a notice of proposed changes to its Rules of Practice, many of which relate to IPR practice under the AIA. Copies of the proposed revisions is found here and the court’s summary of the revisions can be found here. Some of the proposed changes impact the manner … Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Confirms Constitutionality of IPR Proceedings

Today, in MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., a panel of the Federal Circuit unanimously upheld the constitutionality of IPR proceedings, finding that delegation of patent invalidity determinations to a non-Article III Court (in this case, the PTAB) is permissible and that Article 7 of the Constitution is not violated when a patentee cannot bring … Continue reading this entry

Rolling the Dice on Foreign Depositions in IPR Proceedings

In litigation, it is not uncommon for depositions to be taken outside the U.S., particularly when a given witness resides outside the U.S. and cannot or does not wish to travel to the U.S. In IPR proceedings, however, a foreign-based witness’s testimony may be discarded if the witness won’t come to the U.S. for a … 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

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

Kyle Bass Loses Round 1 of IPR Attack Against Pharma/Biotech Patents

On August 24, 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined institution of two petitions filed by Coalition For Affordable Drugs for Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) of Acorda’s patents (U.S. Patent Nos: 8,007,826, 8,663,685) covering Ampyra, a billion-dollar drug for treating multiple sclerosis. Coalition For Affordable Drugs – Petitioner The Petitioner, Coalition For Affordable Drugs, is a … Continue reading this entry