1 1 aipla firm logo american intellectual property law association update on inter partes disputes...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
11 AIPLA
Firm Logo
American Intellectual Property Law Association
Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB
_____
John B. PegramFish & Richardson P.C.
_____
AIPLA IP Practice in Japan Committee
April, 2014
![Page 2: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Today’s Discussion ofUSPTO Post Grant Proceedings
• “Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB”
• Introduction to the Mock Hearing– “The Preliminary Decision instituting an IPR”
• Oral Hearing– Normally 2 hours– Our Mock Hearing will be 1 hour
• Limited to issues involving one claim
![Page 3: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
PTAB Statistics
• FY = Fiscal Year, starting October 1st.• Data as of March 20, 2014.
See http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/stats/aia_statistics_03_20_2014.pdf
![Page 4: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
18 Month PTAB Timeline
4
![Page 5: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
1. Preparation
• Petitioner– Must act quickly if infringement litigation is possible.– Detailed petition is required,
• Claim charts are required, and • Expert declarations are common.
• Patentee– Must be prepared in advance, if possible, – Little time to prepare responses.
• Both parties:– Page limits on all filings can be a problem.
• Multiple petitions.
![Page 6: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
2. Initial Tactics of the Patentee
• Two opportunities to respond to the Petition:– Preliminary Response
• Opposing institution of proceeding – completely, and/or – in part
– Main Response & Amendment of Claims• Claim construction tactics
– “Broadest reasonable interpretation” (BRI) for non-expired patents• The PTAB’s use of this standard is controversial.
![Page 7: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
3. Claim Amendments
• Claim amendments may be offered by Motion to Amend, at the time of the Patentee’s Response, following institution of the proceeding. – Only one opportunity to amend. – The number of claims cannot be increased without a
showing of good cause. – Few amendments have been allowed thus far.
• This is becoming a major point of policy concern for AIPLA and others.
– Preliminary Response is the best time to argue patentable distinctions for dependent claims.
![Page 8: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Claim Amendments
• The Patentee must make a showing of patentable distinction over the prior art: (a) specifically identifying features added to substitute claim vs. challenged claim; and
(b) presenting “technical facts and reasoning about those feature(s), including construction of new claim terms” sufficient to demonstrate patentability.– The Patentee can rely on expert testimony to demonstrate
significance of added features– “A mere conclusory statement by counsel is on its face
inadequate.”
Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., slip op. IPR2012-00027 (PTAB June 11, 2013)
![Page 9: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Claim Amendments
• Petitioner can rebut the patent owner’s position on patentability of the proposed substitute claims in an Opposition to the motion to amend
-- with specific evidence and reasoning, including
• citation and submission of any applicable prior art and
• reliance on declaration testimony of technical experts,
• Opposition is not limited to prior art identified in original petition.
![Page 10: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
4. Discovery Requests
– Four types of discovery: • Mandatory initial disclosures,• Routine discovery, • Additional discovery, and • Discovery by agreement of the parties.
![Page 11: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Additional Discovery
• PTAB must authorize discovery beyond “routine discovery”
• 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5) and 37 C.F.R. § 41.51(b)(2): moving party must demonstrate that additional discovery sought is “in the interest of justice”
![Page 12: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Additional Discovery
5-part test for establishing “in the interest of justice”
(1) More than a possibility and mere allegation that something useful will be found,
(2) Not merely seeking early identification of the other party’s litigation positions,
(3) Lack of ability to generate equivalent information by other means,
(4) Easily understandable requests, and
(5) Requests are not overly burdensome to answer.
See Garmin International Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC, slip. op. IPR2012-00001 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013)
![Page 13: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
5. Settlement
• Yes, you can settle a post grant proceeding;• However, the PTAB has refused to end some AIA
reviews that have reached an "advanced stage," even though the parties had settled. – Only the Petitioner is dismissed and the proceeding
continues with the Patentee. – For example, Interthinx v. Corelogic, Case CBM2012-
00007 (Jan. 30, 2014):• Settlement was after full briefing and before the
hearing, and• All claims were eventually cancelled.
![Page 14: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
6. Relationships with parallel litigationStays of District Court Cases
• As of March 11, 2014: – 112 motions to stay were granted, and – 47 for stay were denied.
• A frequently updated list of district court orders on motions to stay is provided at www.fishpostgrant.com/stays
![Page 15: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Some principal stay considerations
• Will a stay simplify the issues in question and streamline the trial?– Will all asserted claims be addressed by the PTAB?
• Is discovery is complete and has a trial date has been set?
• Will a stay or denial unduly prejudice the nonmoving party?
• Will a stay present a clear tactical advantage for the moving party?
• Will a stay or denial reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court?
![Page 16: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
6. Relationships with parallel litigationEstoppel
• The petitioner in an inter partes review of a claim in a patent that results a final written decision, or the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner, may not assert in district court or the ITC any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(2).• IPR filing statistics suggest that Petitioners are not
very worried about estoppel.• It is unclear whether estoppel applies to grounds that
the PTAB has refused to consider when instituting review.
![Page 17: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
8. Relationships with parallel litigationTiming—the race to a judgment
• Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Intern., Inc.,721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (reexamination).– Claims were cancelled by the PTO,– That decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit, – There had not been a final judgment on appeal of an
infringement action;– Therefore, the cancellation was effective, in spite of
the fact that the courts had not found the claims invalid in the infringement proceedings.
![Page 18: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
The Preliminary Decision Instituting Review by the PTAB
_____
Materials Prepared by
John B. PegramFish & Richardson P.C.
_____
AIPLA IP Practice in Japan Committee
April, 2014
![Page 19: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
18 Month PTAB Timeline
19
![Page 20: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
DECISIONInstitution of Inter Partes Review
![Page 21: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Outline of a DecisionInstituting an Inter Partes Review
I. Introduction– Background– Summary of the Invention– Illustrative Claim– Prior Art References Applied by Petitioner– The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
![Page 22: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Outline of a DecisionInstituting an Inter Partes Review
II. ANALYSIS
A. Findings of Fact
1. Dugan
2. Kim
3. Sklarz
B. Claim Construction
1. Principles of Law
2. "User Knowledgeable-about the Distinguished Home“
3. "Owner of a Home“
![Page 23: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Outline of a DecisionInstituting an Inter Partes Review
II. Analysis (continued)
Sections C. thru F. discuss whether or not the Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that one or more claims are unpatentable on each asserted ground.
III. ORDER
![Page 24: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
THRESHOLD: “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail”
![Page 25: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Mock HearingSummary of the Invention
![Page 26: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Summary of References and Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
![Page 27: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Findings of Fact
![Page 28: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Claim Term Constructions
![Page 29: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Grounds of UnpatentabilityExample 1 - Granted
![Page 30: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Grounds of UnpatentabilityExample 2 – Redundant (Same Art)
![Page 31: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Grounds of UnpatentabilityExample 3 - Denied
![Page 32: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Grounds of UnpatentabilityExample 4 – Redundant (Different Art)
![Page 33: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Order – Grounds Granted
![Page 34: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Order – Grounds Denied
![Page 35: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Order
![Page 36: 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062718/56649e7a5503460f94b7a47e/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
Resources
• USPTO sites:– AIA Main: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/index.jsp– Inter Partes: http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/bpai.jsp– PTAB: http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/
• F&R web sites:– Post-Grant for Practitioners: http://fishpostgrant.com/webinars/– General: http://fishpostgrant.com/– IPR: http://fishpostgrant.com/inter-partes-review/– PGR: http://fishpostgrant.com/post-grant-review/– Rules governing post-grant: http://fishpostgrant.com/