Posts Tagged: "IPR"

The high water mark for the PTAB came in June 2016 when the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee, which ruled that the broadest reasonable interpretations (BRI) standard was acceptable, and that IPR institution decisions were not appealable. After that, however, the tide turned decidedly with the Federal Circuit finding the PTAB acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and that they were blatantly using the wrong definition of a covered business method (CBM) patent to institute challenges on patents that were not financial business methods. The year ends with the Federal Circuit considering whether the PTAB’s refusal to allow motions to amend, despite the statute saying they are allowed, is within their discretion. The writing seems to be on the wall and 2016 seems to be ending with the PTAB in a very different place than it was at the start of the year.

It is one again time to take a moment to look back on the year that was, reflecting on the biggest, most impactful moments of 2016. For us that means looking backward at the most impactful events in the world of intellectual property. As you might expect, the two recurring themes in this 2016 patent year end review relate to patent eligibility and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

When the America Invents Act (AIA) was being formulated, from about 2005 – 2011, nothing was more subject to change bill-to-bill than the proposed “1st look” and “2nd look” procedures for issued US patents. Should the U.S. have a regular opposition procedure, or should existing inter partes reexam just be tweaked? The AIA final result is the universally dis-liked post grant troika known as PGR, IPR, and CBM… For today I will confine my remarks (and associated fixes) to three truly bad ideas that in practice have played out as particularly egregious. More specifically: (1) the lack of standing required for inter partes review (IPR) challenges; (2) the lack of any real ability to amend claims during a post grant proceeding; and (3) the trivially low threshold (i.e., reasonable likelihood) that initiates an IPR.

Join a discussion between panelists Dave Kappas and Brad Pederson on Inter Partes Review, hosted by Gene Quinn of IPWatchdog.com, and sponsored by Article One Partners.

NuVasive owns a patent relating to spinal fusion implants. Medtronic petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) to institute an inter partes review challenging the validity of NuVasive’s patent over several references. The Board instituted the IPR and found the challenged claims obvious over a combination of references.

President-Elect Donald Trump has announced that he will withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement on his first day in office. So ends more than five years of often heated negotiations led by President Barack Obama’s administration as part of an overall strategy to strengthen the US position in the Pacific Rim region… Pulling out of the TPP is a missed opportunity for the US to pursue its IPR agenda in the Pacific Rim economies.

Last week the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) instituted six separate inter partes reviews (IPRs) against patents owned by Allergan plc, which cover RESTASIS®. Each of the patents is listed in FDA’s Orange Book and are set to expire on August 27, 2024. Each of these patents, with the exception of the ‘191 patent, were previously challenged by Apotex Corporation in IPRs filed on June 4, 2015. The Apotex IPRs were settled on December 16, 2015, prior to any decision on institution.

Overall, a significant number of the eleven judges present for argument hinted through their questioning that they thought the PTO’s rulemaking was problematic…. The PTO’s position is that the burden of proof allocated by § 316(e) is not applicable to motions to amend and therefore it may regulate the burden of proof on such motions based on the authority granted to it in § 316(a)(9). Judge Reyna jumped in almost immediately during the PTO’s argument to question the validity of the PTO’s rulemaking. In his view, there is no validly promulgated PTO regulation that places the burden of persuasion for motions to amend on the patent owner.

It is that time once again when we look back on the previous year in preparation to close the final chapter on 2016 and to look ahead toward 2017. With patent reform surprisingly stalled, the biggest news stories of the year may have been the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)… As 2016 started and through at least the first half of 2016 it seemed as if the PTAB had become rather all-powerful and completely unsusceptible to judicial restraints. As we close 2016 and look forward to 2017 a decidedly different picture seems like it is emerging… The other big news story of 2016 was with respect to patent eligibility…

In a handful of IPRs, the Petitioner has relied on a video, and asserted that the video constitutes a printed publication… One factor raised in these cases is the mode by which the video was distributed. Two different modes can be identified: a first in which the video was actively distributed on a physical medium such as a CD; and a second in which the video was passively accessible as by availability on the internet.

On December 9, 2016, the en banc Federal Circuit will hear argument in In re Aqua Products, Inc. on an issue that has long been troubling patent owners involved in inter partes reviews (“IPR”)—the difficulty of amending patent claims before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)… The Federal Circuit granted a petition for rehearing en banc to consider whether the burden of persuasion allocated to the patentee by the PTAB for motions to amend is permissible under the statutory scheme.[5] Notably, the Federal Circuit’s rehearing order specifically identifies 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), which provides that in an IPR “the petitioner,” not the patent owner, “shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.” The Federal Circuit also will consider whether the PTAB can raise sua sponte challenges to patentability, much the way an examiner would, if the IPR petitioner fails to do so.

In an IPR decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidated several claims from U.S. Patent No. 6,030,384 as anticipated or obvious over Japanese Publication No. H1033551A. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded. The antedating inquiry under Pre-AIA section102(g) is directed to evidence of diligent activity during the critical period as a whole and does not require justifying every period of unexplained inactivity.

In 2013, Google, Inc. (“Google”) filed inter partes review and covered business method petitions challenging the validity of Unwired Planet, LLC’s (“Unwired”) patent, at issue on appeal. The patent describes a prioritization of search results based upon the location of a mobile device and including prioritization of “preferred providers” within those search results, in turn providing a “farther-over-nearer” ordering of the results. The Board invalidated all of the challenged claims as obvious. The Federal Circuit concluded, “[b]ecause the use of alphabetical order as prioritization information would sometimes meet the farther-over-nearer claim elements, the Board was correct to conclude that the proposed combination” rendered claim 1 obvious.

”It appears to me that en banc consideration [of Achates] is warranted,” Judge Taranto wrote. ”It is notable, to begin with, that the [Supreme] Court pointedly avoided embracing the simplest and most review-barring reading of § 314(d) – namely, that it prohibits judicial review of any determination to institute an IPR.”

In the second IPR, NuVasive never received an opportunity to respond to contentions citing the Michelson Patent. First, arguments in the first IPR did not carry over to the second IPR. Second, it was not until Medtronic’s reply that NuVasive received notice of Michelson, and then was denied an opportunity respond. NuVasive’s ability to enter observations regarding cross-examination of an expert who opined on Michelson was not an adequate opportunity to respond. The “observations are not a vehicle for submitting new evidence, including new expert declarations, by the patent owner,” and “indeed, the permitted content and format of observations are tightly circumscribed.”