IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
America Invents Act
Subscribe to America Invents Act's Posts

Neck or Nothing? “Quotation” Invalidates On-Sale Bar

by | Dec 19, 2024 | ,

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the patents at issue invalid based on the patent owner’s “quotation” letter to a third party, concluding it was a commercial offer for sale under pre-America Invents Act (AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) notwithstanding the patent owner’s reservation of a post-quote acceptance. Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. v. Belvac Production Machinery, Inc., Case Nos. 22-2299; -2300 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 10, 2024) (Dyk, Hughes, Cunningham, JJ.)

Crown Packaging Technology owns patents for necking machines, which reduce the top diameter of metal beverage cans. The earliest priority date for the patents was April 24, 2008, setting the critical date of April 24, 2007. On November 14, 2006, Crown sent Complete Packaging Machinery a letter quoting one of its necking machines that embodied the claims of its patents.

Crown sued Belvac Production Machinery for infringing Crown’s patents. Belvac raised an invalidity defense under § 102(b), contending that Crown’s pre-critical-date letter to Complete Packaging constituted a commercial offer for sale, which rendered the patents invalid. On summary judgment, Crown argued that its letter could not create a binding contract, was not a commercial offer for sale, and was not an offer for sale “in this country” as required by § 102(b). The district court agreed with Crown, finding that the letter was merely an invitation to make an offer, not an offer in itself. At trial, the jury found the patents valid but not infringed. Both parties appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s validity determination, finding that Crown’s letter was an invalidating offer for sale under § 102(b). The Court’s analysis involved five factors:

  • Whether the subject of the offer embodied the claims of the patents.
  • Whether the offer occurred “in this country.”
  • Whether the offer predated the critical date.
  • Whether the invention was the subject of a commercial offer for sale.
  • Whether the invention was ready for patenting.

Crown conceded that the necking machine embodied the asserted patent claims, was ready for patenting, and that the letter predated the critical date. Thus, the dispute focused on whether the letter was a commercial offer for sale and whether it was made “in this country.”

The Federal Circuit determined that the letter was a commercial offer for sale. While labeled as a “quotation,” the letter included definite terms typically associated with a binding offer, such as pricing, delivery schedules, payment terms, warranties, and liability conditions. These terms established the mutual obligations of the parties. The Court found that the letter required immediate performance since Complete Packaging was obligated to pay 50% of the purchase price upfront and Crown committed to begin manufacturing upon receipt of payment. Also, despite an explicit clause requiring Crown’s written acceptance, the Court found that the letter was still a commercial offer for sale under established legal precedent.

The Federal Circuit also rejected Crown’s argument that the letter was not made “in this country.” Pre-AIA § 102(b) defines an offer made to a US company at its US [...]

Continue Reading



read more

No Need to Call for Backup at the PTAB (Sometimes)

by | Oct 24, 2024 |

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) published a final rule entitled, Expanding Opportunities to Appear Before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board; 89 Fed. Reg. 82172 (Oct. 10, 2024).

The new rule, set to take effect on November 12, 2024, will apply to America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings, which, until now, have required that a party designate lead counsel and backup counsel. Lead counsel was required to be a registered practitioner, and non-registered practitioners could be backup counsel upon a showing of good cause.

The PTO filed a notice of proposed rulemaking on February 21, 2024, in which it proposed amending the regulations to allow the Board to permit a party to proceed without separate backup counsel as long as lead counsel is a registered practitioner. The PTO also proposed to allow a non-registered practitioner admitted pro hac vice to serve as either lead or backup counsel for a party as long as a registered practitioner was also counsel of record for that party, and to allow a non-registered practitioner who was previously recognized pro hac vice in an AIA proceeding to be considered a Board-recognized practitioner and eligible for automatic pro hac vice admission in subsequent proceedings via a simplified and expedited process.

Citing the benefits of flexibility where good cause is shown while ensuring parties are well represented, the PTO has now issued a final rule that will allow parties to proceed without backup counsel. The PTO noted that a party may demonstrate good cause, for example, by demonstrating lack of financial resources to retain both lead and backup counsel. However, the Board will question any claim of lack of financial resources where a party has also elected to pursue litigation involving the challenged patents in other forums. As a result, this rule is more likely to benefit patentees than patent challengers. The PTO also explained that the good cause analysis will center on the party, not on the counsel’s preferences. For example, the PTO is unlikely to find good cause where the lead counsel is a solo practitioner who prefers to work alone.

The PTO also issued a final rule simplifying the process for attorneys who were previously admitted to practice before the Board pro hac vice to gain admission for subsequent matters and to do so without a fee. Any attorney seeking subsequent pro hac vice admission must file a declaration or affidavit stating that all the requirements set out by the Board are met. Opposing counsel also has the opportunity to object.

Finally, the PTO rejected an amendment that would allow non-registered attorneys to serve as lead counsel.



read more

Patent by Secret Process: Perils of Pre-Patent Profiting

by | Aug 22, 2024 | ,

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the International Trade Commission’s (ITC) determination that the asserted process patents were invalid under the America Invents Act (AIA) because products made using the patented process were sold more than one year before the patents’ effective filing dates. Celanese International Corporation, et al. v. International Trade Commission, Case No. 22-1827 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2024) (Reyna, Mayer, Cunningham, JJ.)

Celanese owns patents that cover a process for making the artificial sweetener acesulfame potassium (Ace-K). It was undisputed that Celanese’s patented process was in secret use in Europe and that Ace-K produced using this process had been sold in the United States before the patents’ effective filing dates. Under pre-AIA caselaw, such sales of products made using a secret process before the critical date would trigger the on-sale bar and invalidate any later-sought patent claims on that process. However, because Celanese’s patents had effective filing dates after March 15, 2013, the AIA rules applied. Thus, the case hinged on whether the AIA altered this rule.

In 2019, in Helsinn v. Teva, the Supreme Court addressed similar facts and confirmed that the Federal Circuit’s pre-AIA “on sale” case law, which established that “secret sales” could invalidate a patent, still applied. In Helsinn, the patentee had obtained a patent related to a fixed dose of palonosetron. Prior to the critical date, the patentee entered into a supply and purchase agreement with a third party that covered this same fixed dose of palonosetron. The Supreme Court concluded that Congress, by reenacting similar language in the AIA concerning the on-sale bar, appeared to have adopted the Federal Circuit’s pre-AIA interpretation of the on-sale bar. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that, consistent with Federal Circuit pre-AIA precedent, an inventor’s prior sale of an invention to a third party can qualify as invalidating prior art even if the third party is obligated to keep the invention confidential.

However, unlike in Helsinn, where the claimed invention was the very subject of the commercial sale at issue, Celanese’s patents covered the secret process used to make Ace-K, and it was only the resulting Ace-K that was the subject of commercial sale – not the patented process itself. Although this distinction would not alter the outcome under pre-AIA law, Celanese averred that the AIA had revised the rules for this specific situation. To support its theory, Celanese referenced, among other things, the AIA’s use of the phrase “claimed invention” as opposed to simply “invention” as recited in pre-AIA discussion of the on-sale bar. According to Celanese, this change implied that the invention specifically “claimed” must be on sale to qualify as invalidating prior art.

The ITC rejected Celanese’s argument, concluding that the AIA did not alter the pre-AIA rule that “a patentee’s sale of an unpatented product made according to a secret method triggers the on-sale bar to patentability.” Accordingly, the ITC found that Celanese’s patents were invalid because Celanese sold Ace-K made using its secret process more [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Private Sale Means Public Fail

by | Aug 8, 2024 | ,

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision that a private sale of a product embodying the claimed invention did not qualify as a “public disclosure” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(B). Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Technology Int’l Ltd, Inc., Case No. 23-1336 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2024) (Dyk, Clevenger, Stoll, JJ.)

Sanho owns a patent directed to a port extension apparatus designed to enhance connectivity of end-user devices (such as laptops) with other devices (such as printers). Kaijet petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) challenging certain claims of Sanho’s patent, arguing that the claims were obvious based on a prior art reference. The Board found that the patent claims were invalid because of the prior art reference’s earlier effective filing date. Sanho argued that a prior sale of its HyperDrive device by the inventor of the patent should disqualify the reference as prior art. However, the Board determined that Sanho failed to demonstrate a public disclosure of the HyperDrive sale before the prior art reference’s effective filing date. Thus, the patent was invalidated. Sanho appealed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed, explaining that the America Invents Act (AIA) redefined prior art, shifting from a first-to-invent to a first-inventor-to-file system. Under the AIA, prior art includes patents and applications filed before the patent’s effective filing date subject to exceptions for public disclosures by the inventor. Sanho argued that the HyperDrive sale fell into this exception.

The Federal Circuit dismissed Sanho’s argument that the phrase “publicly disclosed” in § 102(b)(2)(B) should encompass all types of disclosures described in § 102(a)(1), including private sales. The crux of the issue was whether placing an invention “on sale” was tantamount to a “public disclosure” under § 102(b)(2)(B). The statute states that a disclosure is not prior art if the subject matter was publicly disclosed by the inventor before the effective filing date of the prior art. Sanho argued that “publicly disclosed” includes any disclosure, even private sales. The Court disagreed, explaining that the statute’s use of “publicly” implies a narrower scope than just “disclosed.” The Court noted that the purpose of this exception is to protect inventors who make their inventions available to the public before another’s patent filing.

The Federal Circuit also relied on legislative history in support of the conclusion that “public disclosure” in § 102(b)(2)(B) means the invention must be made available to the public. Sanho argued that as long as there are no confidentiality requirements, all disclosures, even private sales, should constitute public disclosures. Again, the Court rejected that argument, noting that the statute differentiates between “publicly disclosed” and general “disclosures,” implying different meanings.

The Federal Circuit determined that § 102(b)(2)(B) protects inventors who publicly disclose their inventions from subsequent disclosures by others, ensuring that prior public disclosure by the inventor prevents a third party’s disclosure from becoming prior art. This provision aims to encourage inventors to share their innovations with the public.

Practice Note: For a disclosure to qualify as “public” under the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

PTO Proposes New Guidelines for Director Review in Board Proceedings

by | Apr 25, 2024 | ,

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) proposed new rules governing the process for Director review of Patent Trial & Appeal Board decisions in America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings. Rules Governing Director Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions, 89 Fed. Reg. 26,807 (proposed Apr. 16, 2024) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42).

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes adding 37 C.F.R. § 42.75, which includes rules addressing the following issues:

Limited Availability of Director Review. The NPRM proposes that Director review in AIA proceedings would only be available to a party from institution decisions, final written decisions or panel decisions granting rehearing of a decision on institution or a final written decision. However, the Director would have authority to review any interlocutory decisions rendered in reaching such decisions. The NPRM also proposes that the Director may sua sponte review institution decisions, final written decisions or decisions granting rehearing.

Timing, Format and Content of Requests for Director Review. The NPRM proposes that requests for Director review would have to be sought within the time period set forth by 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), comply with the formatting and length requirements of 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a) and 42.24(a)(1)(v), and would not be allowed to introduce new evidence. Any sua sponte Director review would have to be initiated within 21 days after the deadline to seek rehearing.

Effect of Director Review. The NPRM proposes that a decision on institution, a final written decision or a decision granting rehearing would become final agency action unless Director review was timely sought or timely initiated sua sponte or a request for Director review was denied.

Director Review Process. The NPRM proposes that Director review would not stay the underlying proceeding, but if the Director grants review, the review would conclude with the issuance of a decision or order that provides the reasons for the Director’s disposition of the case. A party would be permitted to appeal a Director review decision of either a final written decision or a decision granting rehearing of a final written decision (not institution decisions or decisions granting rehearing of institution decisions) to the Federal Circuit in accordance with the procedures set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c) and 319. A request for Director review would be treated as a request for rehearing and would reset the time for appeal until Director review was resolved.

Delegation. The NPRM proposes that delegation of Director review would be permitted, subject to conditions set forth by the Director.

Communications With the PTO. The NPRM proposes that communications from a party concerning a specific Director review request or proceeding would have to copy counsel for all parties. Other than authorized amicus briefings, communications from third parties would not be allowed.

Comments are due by June 17, 2024, and can be submitted through the federal eRulemaking portal here.



read more

PTO Seeks Permanent Rules Regarding Motion to Amend Practice Before Board

by | Mar 14, 2024 |

On March 4, 2024, the US Patent & Trademark Office published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking to revise its Motion to Amend (MTA) pilot program practice in connection with certain America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings. 89 Fed. Reg. 15531 (Mar. 4, 2024). The PTO set a May 3, 2024, deadline for stakeholders to submit written comments in response to the proposed rules.

The MTA pilot program has evolved since its inception nearly five years ago and has been extended to September 16, 2024. The proposal seeks to make permanent certain provisions of the pilot program in response to the PTO’s May 2023 request for comments. The rules would apply to the existing consolidated set of rules relating to trial practice for inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR) and derivation proceedings in trial proceedings under the AIA.

Under the existing MTA pilot program, patent claims challenged during an AIA trial proceeding provide the patent owner with two options when proposing substitute claims in response to a petitioner’s opposition. The first option gives the patent owner the ability to file an MTA so that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board can issue preliminary non-binding guidance regarding the likelihood of an invalidation decision. The PTO proposes to revise its rules of practice to provide for the issuance of preliminary guidance in response to an MTA and to provide a patent owner with the option of filing one additional revised MTA.

The Board’s preliminary guidance typically would come in the form of a short paper issued after a petitioner files its opposition to the MTA and typically would provide the Board’s preliminary views on the MTA, specifically whether the MTA meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for an MTA, whether the parties have met their respective burdens of proof and whether the substitute claims are likely to be found unpatentable. However, the preliminary guidance would not be binding on the Board.

The proposed provisions would also provide the Board with greater authority to raise new grounds of unpatentability based on a preponderance of evidence standard. The new grounds of unpatentability could rely on the entirety of the record, including all prior art of record. The guidance would be accompanied by citations to the evidence in support of these new grounds. Further, where no opposition is filed or other circumstances constitute a lack of opposition, the prior art of record may further include references obtained from the PTO (i.e., examiners) in response to a request from the Board.

The proposed provisions would allow a patent owner to file a revised MTA after receiving a petitioner’s opposition to the original MTA or after receiving the Board’s preliminary guidance. Under the current pilot program, a revised MTA must be preauthorized for “good cause.” Under the revised provisions, the patent owner would be able to file a revised MTA without preauthorization. A revised MTA would replace the original MTA and must include new proposed substitute claims in place of the originally proposed claims. [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Delay Is Okay: Final Written Decisions Can Be Issued After Statutory Deadline

by | Nov 30, 2023 | ,

In a matter of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board has the authority to issue a final written decision (FWD) in a post-grant review (PGR) proceeding after the statutory deadline has passed. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Collegium Pharm., Inc., Case No. 22-1482 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2023) (Dyk, Hughes, Stoll, JJ.)

Purdue owns a patent directed to a pharmaceutical formulation meant to prevent or deter the abuse of opioid analgesics through the use of an aversive agent. On March 13, 2018, Collegium filed a PGR petition asserting that the patent claims were invalid. On September 24, 2019, Purdue filed a notice of bankruptcy and imposition of automatic stay, after which the Board stayed the PGR proceeding. The Board’s one-year deadline to issue an FWD under 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(11) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(c) expired on October 4, 2019. After the bankruptcy court lifted the stay on the PGR proceeding on September 1, 2020, Purdue argued that the Board no longer had the authority to issue an FWD because the 18-month statutory deadline to do so had passed. The Board disagreed and issued an FWD finding the challenged claims unpatentable. Purdue appealed.

Purdue argued that the Board did not have authority to issue an FWD after the deadline established by 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(11) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(c) had passed. Purdue advanced four arguments in favor of its proposed interpretation of § 326(a)(11):

  1. The use of “shall” and “requiring” deprives the Board of the authority to issue an FWD.
  2. The “negative words” of “not later than 1 year” and “by not more than 6 months” indicate a loss of authority.
  3. The statutory language in § 326(a)(11) requires PGR proceedings to be conducted “in accordance with” the Board’s jurisdictional grant in 35 U.S.C. § 6, and therefore the Board’s jurisdiction expires when the deadline in § 326(a)(11) expires.
  4. The exceptions in § 326(a)(11) for “good cause” and “joinder” demonstrate that those are the only limited instances where the Board may issue an FWD after the statutory deadline.

None of Purdue’s arguments persuaded the Federal Circuit. The Court reasoned that § 328(a) plainly requires the issuance of an FWD and that “[h]ad Congress meant to deprive the agency of power in § 326(a)(11), it knew how to do it” vis-à-vis the use of specific language, like the language it used in other sections of the America Invents Act (AIA), such as 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 321(c), both of which specifically deny agency power after a temporal deadline.

The Federal Circuit also considered the legislative history of § 316(a)(11), recognizing that Congress created PGR and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings when enacting the AIA to, among other things, replace the “lengthy and inefficient” reexamination proceeding. The Court reasoned that prohibiting an FWD after the statutory deadline would “force” parties to commence district court litigation—an act contrary to the purpose of the AIA, which [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Distinguishing Drinkware—Provisional Priority Determined Differently in Pre- and Post-AIA Patents

by | Nov 30, 2023 | ,

In a precedential final written decision, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board concluded that a patent does not need to contain a claim supported by a provisional application’s disclosure to draw priority to that provisional for prior art purposes post America Invents Act (AIA). Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc., IPR2021-01466, paper 34 (PTAB Mar. 10, 2023) (designated precedential Nov. 15, 2023) (Melvin, Cotta, Wisz, APJs).

Penumbra filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition targeting a patent directed to a “thrombectomy system,” which is a system for removing blood clots in the brain. Penumbra challenged the claims on four different grounds, and each included the Tiegen reference. Therefore, the petition would fail if the Tiegen reference was not prior art.

The challenged patent was filed on July 18, 2019, and drew priority to a provisional application filed on October 24, 2018. Tiegen drew priority to two provisional applications—one dated December 12, 2018, and another dated July 24, 2018. Whether Tiegen was prior art thus depended on whether the challenged patent could draw priority to its provisional application, and whether Tiegen could draw priority to its July 24, 2018, provisional. RapidPulse challenged Tiegen on both bases.

First, the Board assessed the proper priority date for the challenged patent. The Board explained that in order for the patent to draw priority to its provisional application, that provisional application had to provide written support for the challenged patent’s claims. Penumbra argued that the challenged patent’s provisional application did not have written support for the claimed “prevent[ing] forward flow.” RapidPulse responded, arguing that the disclosure of a “minimal amount of momentum from the fluid column” disclosed the claimed “preventing forward flow.” Forward flow generates momentum from the fluid column, so minimizing momentum required preventing fluid flow, according to RapidPulse. RapidPulse also pointed to embodiments that had substantially no forward flow from the distal end of the system.

Penumbra responded by explaining that the provisional application required forward flow in some embodiments, and nothing in the specification stated that the flow should be prevented. The Board agreed, explaining that the provisional application included embodiments with forward flow, and while the provisional recited some embodiments with small amounts of forward flow, the provisional did not indicate that the low forward flow was significant. The Board observed that “one cannot disclose a forest in the original application, and then later pick a tree out of the forest.”

Having determined that the priority date of the challenged patent was July 18, 2019, the Board turned to the priority date of Tiegen. The Board distinguished the present case over Dynamic Drinkware, a 2015 US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case. Dynamic Drinkware states that for prior art purposes, a prior art patent can only draw priority to a provisional application if the prior art patent contains a claim supported by that provisional application. The Board explained that Dynamic Drinkware does not apply post-AIA. Instead, the Board found that, based on the language of AIA 35 [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Status Quo Has Few Defenders at PREVAIL Act Senate Subcommittee Hearing

by and | Nov 16, 2023 | ,

On November 8, 2023, the US Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property heard testimony from four witnesses on the proposed Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act. Although the PREVAIL Act includes several provisions regarding transparency and independence, its thrust is its dramatic alteration of Patent Trial & Appeal Board post-grant review (PGR) and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, including their relationship to co-pending district court litigation, with the goal of incentivizing innovation by reducing costs and making such challenges less likely to be successful.

We previously reported on the provisions of the proposed PREVAIL Act when it was introduced. The biggest changes under consideration include the introduction of a standing requirement, a heightened burden of proof from preponderance-of-the-evidence to clear-and-convincing evidence, a stronger estoppel to thwart costly and unnecessary co-pending actions in court and at the Board, and the separation of the Board’s institution and decision-making functions.

Three witnesses spoke in favor of the PREVAIL Act before the subcommittee, emphasizing that the Board failed to live up to the purposes and intentions of the America Invents Act (AIA). These witnesses were Representative Lamar Smith, a co-sponsor of the AIA; Michelle Armond, co-founder of the law firm Armond Wilson LLP and a practitioner before the Board; and Joseph Kiani, founder of Masimo Industries.

Smith testified that Congress enacted the AIA because it recognized the potential for Board proceedings to be abused, and according to Smith, that is exactly what has happened. Each of the three witnesses testified that well-funded litigants have exploited Board procedures to overwhelm small businesses by forcing them into expensive duplicative proceedings in multiple forums. For example, Kiani posited that the Board posed an existential threat to startups, attributing findings of invalidity against his company’s patents to the AIA’s invalidation-friendly procedures.

Armond explained to the subcommittee how the PREVAIL Act would streamline Board proceedings and harmonize them with district court and International Trade Commission (ITC) litigation. According to Armond, in the wake of the AIA, both the Board and district courts have failed to offer uniform standards for deciding whether to stay a proceeding in their forum pending resolution of a parallel proceeding in the other. The PREVAIL Act would resolve this problem by requiring litigants to select only one forum in which they may raise their invalidity arguments. Armond argued that using the same clear-and-convincing-evidence standard in Board review proceedings and other litigation would harmonize the Board with district courts and the ITC by ensuring that different forums reach the same invalidity decision.

Joseph Matal, former US Patent & Trademark Office interim director and acting solicitor, and current principal of Clear IP, LLC, was the lone dissenting witness at the hearing. According to Matal, the PREVAIL Act’s proposal to require a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard in Board review proceedings is misguided because Board judges possess the requisite agency expertise to second-guess patent examination decisions. Additionally, Board judges often have more time to evaluate the patents and more information than the examiner. According to Matal, [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Sins of the Fathers? Grandparent IPR Factors into Current Institution Decision

by | Sep 7, 2023 | ,

US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director Kathi Vidal vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision denying institution of an inter partes review (IPR) because the Board improperly applied the precedential Advanced Bionics framework in rendering its decision. Keysight Tech., Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., IPR2022-01421 (PTAB Decision Review Aug. 24, 2023) (Vidal, Dir.)

Keysight Tech. petitioned for an IPR proceeding against a patent owned by Centripetal Networks, challenging the validity of all claims. After the Board denied institution, Director Vidal issued a sua sponte director review decision, vacating and remanding the Board’s decision.

The Centripetal patent is the great-grandchild of, and shares the same disclosure as, an earlier Centripetal patent that was subject to an IPR proceeding during the pendency of the presently challenged patent. The Final Written Decision (FWD) in the earlier IPR found all claims of the patent unpatentable. The patent owner included that FWD in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted during the prosecution of the presently challenged patent, and the examiner initialed it as having been considered.

In its decision denying institution, the Board cited the guidance of Advanced Bionics, which articulates a framework that requires that the Board determine the following:

  • Whether the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments made in the petition were previously presented to the PTO during prosecution of the challenged patent
  • Whether the PTO erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims when it allowed the claims of the patent.

If both factors are met in the affirmative, the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny institution.

Here, the Board found that the first factor of the Advanced Bionics framework was met because the petitioner’s arguments in its petition were the same or substantially the same as those in the FWD in the IPR of the grandparent patent. However, the Board found that the second part of the framework was not satisfied and therefore denied institution.

Although Director Vidal agreed with the Board’s findings under the first factor, she vacated the Board’s findings pursuant to the second factor after determining that this factor was also met. Director Vidal found that the PTO erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims for the following reasons:

  • The challenged patent and the grandparent were directed to the same subject matter.
  • The prior art references submitted to the PTO during the prosecution of the challenged patent were the same as those asserted in earlier IPR and were considered by the examiner through the patent owner’s IDS.
  • In the grandparent IPR, the Board held all of the claims of the patent unpatentable due to these same prior art references.
  • The examiner’s statement of reasons for allowing the challenged patent was that the claims were directed to limitations that appeared in both the currently challenged claims and the claims found unpatentable in the grandparent patent.

As the director noted, the overlap between the claim limitations in the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES