IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
Inter Partes Review (IPR)
Subscribe to Inter Partes Review (IPR)'s Posts

See Here: No Standing Based on Vague Future Plans or Adverse Priority Findings

by | Nov 16, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from a final written decision in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, finding that the petitioner lacked standing because it suffered no injury in fact. Allgenesis Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Cloudbreak Therapeutics, LLC, Case No. 22-1706 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 7, 2023) (Moore, Stoll, Cunningham, JJ.)

Allgenesis Biotherapeutics filed an IPR petition challenging a patent owned by Cloudbreak Therapeutics. The challenged patent discloses compositions and methods for treating the eye condition pterygium. During the IPR proceeding, Cloudbreak disclaimed all but two of the claims. The Patent Trial & Appeal Board issued a final written decision finding that Allgenesis failed to show that the remaining two claims were unpatentable. As part of its decision, the Board made a priority decision that a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application belonging to Allgenesis was not prior art to Cloudbreak’s patent. Allgenesis appealed.

Article III of the US Constitution limits the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction to adjudication of “cases” or “controversies,” which means the appellant must have (1) suffered an injury in fact (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant and (3) likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.

Allgenesis attempted to establish Article III standing based on two separate arguments. First, Allgenesis argued that it had standing based on potential infringement liability. To support that argument, Allgenesis offered a declaration by its vice president of finance that included information about a Phase II trial completed three years prior and a related 2020 publication. That declaration, however, did not identify any specific plan to conduct a Phase III trial or to seek US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, and instead only contained generic statements that the project was not abandoned. While Allgenesis’s briefing and oral argument included statements that it planned to engage in a Phase III trial, the Federal Circuit determined that there was no record support for this claim. The Court found that the evidence before it did not constitute the necessary concrete plans to convey standing to appeal the final written decision. Allgenesis also attempted to rely on its own failed attempts at seeking a settlement from Cloudbreak, but the Court concluded that this was insufficient to show a substantial risk of infringement.

Allgenesis’s second argument was that the Board’s priority decision created an injury in fact. Allgenesis argued that the Board’s determination about the priority date of Cloudbreak’s patent affected Allgenesis’s patent rights because it would have a preclusive effect on Allgenesis’s pending applications. The Federal Circuit was unpersuaded and explained that collateral estoppel does not attach to a non-appeal priority decision from an IPR decision. To the extent that an examiner did reach the same conclusion as the Board, Allgenesis would be free to appeal that decision.

Practice Note: For Board petitioners seeking to establish standing to appeal unfavorable final written decisions, it is necessary to develop sufficient support to show standing in fact. For life sciences companies working in drug development, declarations [...]

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

Say Goodbye: Argument Not Presented in IPR Petition Is Waived

by | Nov 2, 2023 |

In a split decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board patentability determination, finding that the challenger’s appeal arguments were not raised in its inter partes review (IPR) petitions and were therefore waived. Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, Case Nos. 22-1203; -1204 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 25, 2023) (Linn, Chen, JJ.) (Dyk, J., dissenting).

DivX owns two patents directed to media streaming technologies. In media streaming, content (such as a movie) is typically stored as separate “streams” suitable for different device capabilities. A playback device must be able to select the appropriate media file from the available streams. To accomplish this selection, the challenged patents discuss a method for automatically generating top-level index files that describe the location and content of container files having streams of media. In particular, an independent claim in each of the patents recites a method comprising “receiving” a request for content, “retrieving” a list of assets associated with the content, “filtering” the list of assets using device capability, “generating . . . a top level index file describing each asset in the filtered list of assets” and “sending the top level index file” to the playback device.

Netflix challenged the two patents in two separate IPR proceedings based on two combinations of prior art references: Pyle and Marusi, and Lewis and Marusi. The Board issued lengthy final written decisions for both petitions, closely analyzing the arguments and evidence presented by Netflix and DivX. The Board determined that Netflix failed to meet its burden of showing that the challenged claims were unpatentable. Netflix appealed.

At the outset, the Federal Circuit noted that “Netflix’s appeal does not challenge any of the Board’s substantive analysis.” It instead makes a purely procedural argument, accusing the Board of “falling down on the job by failing to address several arguments purportedly raised in Netflix’s petitions.” One such argument that the Court identified related to the “filtering” claim element. The Court, the Board and Netflix all agreed that Netflix had advanced an argument that Pyle teaches the filtering element based on Pyle’s selection of a preexisting manifest. Netflix, however, argued on appeal that it also had advanced an argument that Pyle teaches the filtering element based on Pyle’s creation of a new manifest. The Board found that this argument was not presented in Netflix’s petition, and the Federal Circuit agreed. At the Federal Circuit, Netflix identified various block quotes in its petition that purported to support the argument. However, the Court found that “nothing in the quoted language itself signals to a reader that an optimized new manifest equates to ‘filtering the list of assets.’” Furthermore, “the petition made it quite clear Netflix was focused on Pyle’s pre-existing manifest . . . Netflix thus showed it knew how to put forward a clear mapping of Pyle to the filtering limitation, but never connected Pyle’s new manifest to that limitation.”

Judge Dyk dissented. In his opinion, Netflix had not failed to advance the “new manifest” [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Go With the Flow: “A” Still Means “One or More”

by | Oct 26, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a claim construction that was adopted during an inter partes review (IPR) because the Patent Trial & Appeal Board erred in construing the contested limitation as limited to a single sample rather than including the possibility of plural samples. ABS Global, Inc. v. Cytonome/ST, LLC, Case No. 22-1761 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 19, 2023) (Reyna, Taranto, Stark, JJ.)

ABS and Genus plc (collectively, ABS) filed a petition to institute an IPR on a patent owned by Cytonome. The patent claims microfluidic devices for particle (e.g., cells, molecules and other particles of interest) processing. The claimed devices exploit the principles of laminar flow to hydrodynamically focus particles at a certain point along the flow path for inspection or other purposes. The claimed devices are capable of hydrodynamically focusing the flow of a particle-containing fluid (the sample fluid) by abutting the sample fluid on more than one side with a fluid that does not contain particles (the sheath fluid). Generally, the faster the sheath fluid flows relative to the sample fluid the more the sample fluid’s corresponding cross-section is compressed. Figure 3A of the patent is an example of how the claimed devices use sheath fluid (SF) to focus a sample fluid (S) along a channel (CL):

ABS’s petition argued that the challenged claims were anticipated or obvious at least in view of a prior publication that taught devices with a split sample stream. The Board disagreed, construing the challenged patent claims as directed to a single sample stream and concluding that ABS failed to demonstrate why those of ordinary skill—in view of the art cited in ABS’s petition—would have modified the prior art split sample stream into the claimed single sample stream. ABS appealed.

The Federal Circuit found that the Board erred in construing the challenged claims. In construing the independent claim as being limited to a single sample stream, the Board focused on two limitations: “an inlet configured to receive a sample stream” and “a fluid focusing region configured to focus the sample stream….” In limiting the claim to a single sample stream, the Board relied on the definite article preceding the second recitation of “sample stream” and noted that a plural-allowing interpretation would be inconsistent with a dependent claim that further requires the focusing fluid to be “introduced into the flow channel symmetrically with respect to a centerline of the sample stream.”

The Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s claim construction, concluding that the dependent claim was not inconsistent with a plural-streams interpretation for the independent claim and that the Board committed two errors in construing both claims. First, the Board did not properly apply what the Court refers to as the “general rule,” which is applicable to open-ended “comprising” claims that recite “a” or “an” before a noun. The Court explained that such a limitation should be construed to mean one or more unless context sufficiently indicates otherwise. Second, [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Less Is More: IPR Claim Amendments May Not Enlarge Claim Scope

by | Sep 14, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision from the Patent Trial & Appeal Board denying a motion to amend claims during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, explaining that a claim amendment is improper if a proposed claim is broader in any respect relative to the original claims, even if it is overall narrower. Sisvel International S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc., et al., Case Nos. 22-1387; -1492 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 1, 2023) (Prost, Reyna, Stark, JJ.)

Sisvel owns two patents directed to methods and apparatuses that rely on the exchange of frequency information in connection with cell reselection between a mobile station (or user cell phone) and a central mobile switching center. Sierra Wireless filed petitions for IPR alleging that claims of Sisvel’s patents were unpatentable as anticipated and/or obvious in view of certain prior art. During the IPR proceeding, the Board determined that the claim term “connection rejection message” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning of “a message that rejects a connection.”

The Board also denied Sisvel’s motion to amend the claims of one of the patents, finding that the amendments would have impermissibly enlarged the claim scope. the Board focused on a limitation relating to “setting a value,” comparing the original claims’ requirement with that of the proposed substitute claims. The original claims required that the value be set “based at least in part on information in at least one frequency parameter” of the connection rejection message while the substitute claims recited that the value may be set merely by “using the frequency parameter” contained within the connection rejection message. The Boeasoneasoned that in the proposed substitute claim, the value that is set need not be based on information in the connection rejection message, and thus the claim was broader in this respect than the original claims. After denying the motion to amend, the Board concluded that the original claims were unpatentable. Sisvel appealed.

Sisvel challenged the Board’s construction of “connection rejection message,” arguing that the term should be limited to a message from the specific cellular networks disclosed in the specification. The Federal Circuit rejected Sisvel’s argument, finding that the intrinsic evidence provided no persuasive basis to limit the claims to any particular cellular network disclosure. Having agreed with the Board’s construction, the Court affirmed the unpatentability determination.

Sisvel also challenged the Board’s refusal to permit Sisvel to amend the claims. Sisvel argued that the Board had incorrectly found that the proposed substitute claims were broader than the original claims because when all the limitations were considered as a whole, the scope of the substitute claims was narrower than the original claims.

Citing 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(3), the Federal Circuit noted that when a patent owner seeks to amend its claims during an IPR, the amended claims “may not enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent.” The Court explained that removal of a claim requirement can broaden the resulting amended claim and concluded that such was the case [...]

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

Petitioner Reply May Include New Evidence if Responsive to Patent Owner and Based on Original Legal Contentions

by | Aug 24, 2023 |

Addressing the issue of new invalidity theories offered during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a petitioner does not improperly offer new theories when it merely expands on previously raised arguments and responds to a patent owner’s assertions without advancing a “meaningfully distinct [invalidity] contention.” Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., Case No. 21-1796 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 11, 2023) (Moore, C.J.; Reyna, Dyk, JJ.) The Court further concluded that the patent owner waived its new theories argument by raising a general objection that did not identify which theories were allegedly new.

Alere filed an IPR petition challenging a Rembrandt patent directed to test assay devices and methods for testing biological fluids. Alere argued that the claims were obvious over two combinations of prior art references (among other grounds not at issue on appeal): MacKay in view of Charm or May, and Tydings in view of MacKay or Lee-Own. On remand from a previous appeal, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board ordered briefings on all non-instituted grounds set forth in Alere’s petition. Rembrandt filed a patent owner response without an expert declaration. Alere filed a reply attaching a declaration from its expert and responding to arguments raised by Rembrandt in its response and by the Board in its institution decision.

In a sur-reply, Rembrandt generally argued that Alere “resort[ed] to new theories in reply” but did not specifically contest the two combinations at issue while specifically objecting to other allegedly new theories. Relying on Alere’s expert testimony, the Board issued a final written decision finding the claims at issue unpatentable over the MacKay and Tydings combinations. Rembrandt unsuccessfully petitioned for Director rehearing and then appealed the decision, arguing that the Board abused its discretion by relying on Alere’s new theories and evidence and that there was a dearth of substantial evidence to support the Board’s determinations.

The Federal Circuit first considered whether Rembrandt had forfeited its new theories argument by raising a general objection without expressly objecting to the obviousness grounds at issue. Underscoring the fact that Rembrandt had specifically identified and objected to other allegedly new theories, the Court concluded that Rembrandt’s general objection was insufficient and that Rembrandt’s “objection” argument had been forfeited. The Court noted that holding otherwise would be unfair to the parties and the Board because such a general objection could not provide adequate notice.

Even though Rembrandt’s new theories argument had been waived, the Federal Circuit concluded that Alere’s reply arguments did not constitute new theories and evidence. As the Court noted, in its reply a petitioner must identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for each challenge to each claim” and may “only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, . . . patent owner response, or decision on institution.” The Court further explained that a petitioner who asserts previously unidentified prior art disclosures or embodiments in its reply to make a “meaningfully distinct contention” impermissibly raises a [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Tune to the Right Channel: Disclosure Lacking Fraud Information Isn’t an FCA Qui Tam Bar

by | Aug 17, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s decision to dismiss a qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act (FCA) after analyzing the public disclosure bar channels. The case required the Ninth Circuit to examine Congress’s 2010 amendments to the FCA public disclosure bar to determine whether the claims were substantially the same as information publicly disclosed in any one of three enumerated channels. Silbersher v. Valeant Pharm. Int’l, Inc., No. 20-16176 (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2023) (Schroeder, Sanchez, Antoon, JJ.)

The FCA imposes civil liability on anyone who knowingly presents a fraudulent claim for payment to the federal government. The FCA includes a qui tam provision that allows private citizens (or “relators”) to bring fraud claims on behalf of the government. In 2010, Congress’s public disclosure bar precluded qui tam actions if substantially the same allegations or transactions were publicly disclosed in one of three channels:

  1. In a federal criminal, civil or administrative hearing in which the government or its agent is a party
  2. In a congressional, Government Accountability Office (GAO) or other Federal Report hearing, audit or investigation
  3. From the news media, unless the action is brought by the Attorney General or the person bringing the action is an original source of the information.

Valeant owns the “Otterbeck patents” for its drug Apriso’s delayed-release formula. Valeant initiated an infringement action against Lupin, a generic drug manufacturer that attested in an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) that the Otterbeck patents were invalid because of prior art that described a similar delayed-release formula. Thereafter, Valeant extended its monopoly by applying for and being granted a new patent that claimed a recent discovery that Apriso was effective when taken without food. GeneriCo then challenged the new patent in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, arguing that it was obvious that Apriso would be effective without food. GeneriCo presented two medical studies as support. The Patent Trial & Appeal Board agreed and invalidated the claims in the new patent.

Zachary Silbersher, GeneriCo’s IPR lawyer and a relator in another FCA suit in the same court, discovered that Valeant failed to disclose certain information to the US Patent &Trademark Office (PTO) during the IPR proceeding. Specifically, he discovered that three years before applying for the new patent, Valeant applied for another patent where it claimed it made an unexpected finding that taking Apriso’s active ingredient with food made the drug more effective. This claim was the opposite of the claim made in the new application that had been invalidated in the IPR proceeding.

Silbersher brought an FCA case seeking damages from Valeant, alleging that Valeant fraudulently obtained the Otterbeck and new patent to prolong its monopoly and charge an artificially high price for Apriso. The district court dismissed Silbersher’s qui tam action as precluded by the public disclosure bar because the IPR qualified as an “other Federal hearing” under channel two of the bar, as described above. Silbersher appealed.

The Ninth Circuit analyzed whether [...]

Continue Reading



read more

New Claim Construction in Patent Owner’s Post-Initiation IPR Response? Sure, Charge Away

by | Aug 17, 2023 |

Addressing the issue of new claim constructions presented by a patent owner after the institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a petitioner is entitled to argue and present evidence under the new construction so long as it relies on the same prior art embodiments used in the petition. Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Case No. 22-1532 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2023) (Dyk, Lourie, and Taranto, JJ.)

Medtronic owns two patents directed to the transcutaneous charging of implanted medical devices via inductive coupling between a primary coil in an external charger and a secondary coil in the implanted device. The relevant claims of each patent require the external charger’s power to be automatically varied based on “a value associated with the current passing through the internal power source” (the value limitation) and “a measured current associated with the current passing through the internal power source” (the measured current limitation).

Axonics filed two IPR petitions challenging Medtronic’s patents, arguing that the claims were anticipated by three prior art references. Axonics’s petitions did not propose any express claim constructions, but its claim charts stated that the measured current limitation simply narrows the “value” in the value limitation to “measured current” and does not require a separate measurement. Under this “one-input” construction, both limitations would be satisfied if the external power source automatically varied its power output based on the implanted device’s current. In its preliminary response, Medtronic agreed that while claim construction was not necessary, the prior art failed to anticipate the claimed device under the one-input construction. In its institutional decision, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board agreed that “no term requires express construction.”

In its patent owner response, Medtronic (for the first time) advanced a new claim construction, arguing that the value limitation and the measured current limitation required separate inputs (the two-input construction). In Axonics’ reply, it defended the one-input construction and further argued that the three prior art references also disclosed the claimed device under the two-input construction. In support of its reply, Axonics submitted a supplemental expert declaration citing additional disclosures in the prior art references pertaining to the same embodiments relied upon in the petition. Medtronic argued that it would be prejudicial for the Board to consider Axonics’ new reply arguments without providing Medtronic an opportunity to submit a supplemental expert declaration. Medtronic, however, did not seek leave to submit a new declaration.

In its final written decision, the Board adopted the two-input construction and declined to consider Axonics’ arguments and evidence under the new construction, considering them to be improper reply arguments. Axonics appealed.

The Federal Circuit acknowledged that a petition is required to identify “in writing and with particularity…the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based, and the evidence that supports the grounds.” To that end, a petitioner may not submit new evidence or arguments in a reply that could have been raised earlier but may respond to new arguments [...]

Continue Reading



read more

No Need for Unnecessary RPI Determinations

by | Jul 27, 2023 |

The US Patent & Trademark Office Director partially vacated the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s real-party-in-interest (RPI) determination because that determination was not necessary to resolve the underlying proceeding. Unified Patents, LLC v. MemoryWeb, LLC, IPR2021-01413, Paper 76 (PTAB May 22, 2023) (Vidal, Dir.)

Unified Patents filed a petition requesting inter partes review (IPR) of a patent owned by MemoryWeb. In its petition, Unified certified that it was the only RPI. Prior to institution, both parties briefed whether Unified should have identified two third parties as RPIs under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). In its institution decision, the Board declined to determine whether the third parties were RPIs because there was no allegation in the proceeding of a time bar or estoppel based on there being an unnamed RPI, and therefore the proceedings would not have created a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315 even if the third parties were included as RPIs.

After institution, MemoryWeb continued to argue that the Board should terminate the proceeding because of Unified’s alleged failure to name the third parties as RPIs while also arguing that in the alternative, the Board should find the two third parties estopped from challenging the validity of the claims at issue in two different IPRs covering the same patent. The Board then issued an order identifying the third parties as RPIs, explaining that it was now appropriate to determine whether the two third parties were RPIs “[b]ecause the issue of Section 315(e) estoppel has been put before us [as relevant to the subsequent IPR challenges filed by the third parties], and we now have a complete factual record available to fully address the RPI question, and to avoid unnecessary prejudice to Patent Owner.” The Board also explained that it was now necessary to determine whether the third parties were RPIs in the case at hand to determine whether they would be estopped in a subsequent proceeding.

Unified filed a request for Director review of the Board’s RPI determination. Unified argued that the panel erred by issuing a non-binding advisory opinion on RPI that prejudiced the third parties by prejudging the RPI issue without their participation and where the decision could bind them in their later-filed proceedings. Unified also cited the Board’s precedential decision in SharkNinja v. iRobot, arguing that the Board should not resolve an RPI issue when it would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315 in the proceeding.

The Director concluded that the Board can and should determine the RPIs or real parties in privity in a proceeding where that determination may impact the underlying proceeding, including (but not limited to) a time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) that might apply. However, the Director determined that such was not the situation here since determining the RPI issue was not necessary to resolve the proceeding. The Director, therefore, vacated the Board’s RPI determinations.



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES