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

USPTO Director to decide AIA petitions

by | Oct 23, 2025 | ,

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a memorandum on October 17, 2025, titled “Director Institution of AIA Trial Proceedings,” providing updated guidance to the Patent Trial & Appeal Board regarding the standards and procedures for instituting trial proceedings under the America Invents Act (AIA), including inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR).

Since the AIA’s enactment in 2012, the Board’s trial proceedings have become a central mechanism for challenging the validity of issued patents. The institution phase, in which the Board decides whether to proceed with a trial, has been shaped by a series of precedential decisions and evolving USPTO policies, particularly regarding discretionary denials under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 325(d).

The October 17, 2025, memorandum states that to “improve efficiency, consistency, and adherence to the statutory requirements for institution of trial, effective October 20, 2025, the Director will determine whether to institute trial for [IPR and PGR] proceedings.” If the Director determines that review is appropriate based on discretionary, merits-based, or other considerations, the USPTO will issue a summary notice granting institution for at least one challenged claim. If the Director determines review is not appropriate, the USPTO will issue a summary notice denying institution. For cases involving novel or complex issues, the Director may issue a detailed decision or refer the matter to one or more Board judges. A three-member Board panel will conduct all instituted reviews. The memorandum also notes that the USPTO has issued more than 580 prior decisions under interim processes that offer guidance on handling of discretionary factors.



read more

Double trouble: Proposed IPR institution changes would limit duplicative proceedings

by | Oct 23, 2025 | ,

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) proposed changes to the rules governing inter partes reviews (IPRs) before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, including setting limits on use of IPR proceedings for patent claims that have already been challenged in a prior proceeding. According to the USPTO, the proposal is aimed at preventing duplicative litigation against patent holders and promoting fairness, efficiency, and predictability in patent disputes.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking introduces changes to 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 that would bar the institution of IPRs in cases where:

  • A petitioner refuses to stipulate that it won’t pursue invalidity challenges under §§ 102 or 103 in other venues, such as a district court or the US International Trade Commission (ITC).
  • The challenged claims were found not invalid or not unpatentable in a prior district court, ITC, Board reexamination, or Federal Circuit proceeding.
  • Parallel litigation involving the patent will likely reach a decision before the final IPR written decision.

The proposed rule would provide an exception to the proposed IPR limitations in “extraordinary circumstances,” such as a bad faith institution of a previous IPR or a substantial change in law that renders a prior challenge irrelevant.

The USPTO explained that the proposed changes will offer greater certainty for patent owners by reducing serial validity challenges, improving judicial efficiency by minimizing duplicative proceedings, and facilitating lower litigation costs and stronger investment incentives. The USPTO noted that the changes would benefit smaller technology companies, which often lack the litigation resources of larger companies and are more vulnerable to the effects of weaker patent rights.

The proposed changes would represent a significant shift in the availability of IPR for petitioners and would alter the timing and strategy of decisions about whether to pursue an IPR. Comments on the proposed rule changes are due by November 17, 2025, and can be submitted via the federal eRulemaking portal.



read more

The smoke has cleared – and so has your invalidity defense

by | Sep 25, 2025 | ,

The US District Court for the Northern District of Iowa issued an instructive decision clarifying the scope of statutory estoppel under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) following post-grant review (PGR) proceedings before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board. Intirion Corp. v. College Products, Inc., Case No. 23-cv-4023-CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa Sept. 16, 2025) (Williams, J.)

Intirion brought a patent infringement suit against College Products, which responded by petitioning the Board for PGR, challenging the patents based on obviousness and indefiniteness. While the PGR was pending, the district court proceeded with claim construction and initially found the terms “level of smoke,” “amount of smoke,” and “dangerous condition” indefinite. Intirion moved for reconsideration, and College Products filed a motion for partial summary judgment asserting invalidity. Intirion also sought a stay of the litigation pending the PGR outcome, which the court granted.

The Board instituted review of all claims. Initially, it found that neither party had requested express construction of any terms and adopted Intirion’s interpretation that “level of smoke” and “amount of smoke” meant “merely detecting smoke,” based on Intirion’s representations in the district court. In its final written decision (FWD), the Board acknowledged the district court’s indefiniteness findings but ultimately adopted the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms, concluding that a person of ordinary skill in the art could determine appropriate thresholds using known methods. Expert testimony persuaded the Board that defining the terms by their function was sufficiently definite under patent law.

After the Board upheld the claims, the district court found that College Products was estopped under 35 U.S.C. §325(e)(2) from asserting any invalidity grounds (including indefiniteness and obviousness) that were or reasonably could have been raised during the PGR. The district court explained that the AIA established a streamlined system allowing third parties to challenge the patentability of issued claims before the Board as a quicker and more cost-effective alternative to litigation. This structure is specifically designed to prevent challengers from getting multiple bites at the apple by raising the same or similar arguments in subsequent court proceedings.

College Products argued that estoppel should not apply because it filed its motion for partial summary judgment before the Board issued its FWD. The district court rejected this argument, explaining that the statutory language provides no exception based on timing and imposes a clear bar once the Board has issued a FWD. The district court also found that College Products’ position was inconsistent with applicable case law and noted that it failed to cite any contrary authority.

The district court further explained that it had intentionally deferred ruling on College Products’ motion for partial summary judgment of invalidity pending the outcome of the PGR proceedings. Once the PTAB issued its FWDs, College Products was estopped from further challenging the validity of the patents, including through its pending summary judgment motion, because it could have raised any such indefiniteness arguments during the PGR process.

Practice note: Unlike inter partes review (IPR), during PGR a petitioner can challenge patentability on grounds [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Derivation proceedings highlight race to file under AIA

by | Sep 11, 2025 | ,

In one of the first decisions regarding derivation proceedings under the America Invents Act (AIA), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s finding that an application earlier filer had not derived his claimed invention from a later-filing petitioner. Global Health Solutions, LLC v. Marc Selner, Case No. 2023-2009 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 26, 2025) (Stoll, Stark, JJ.) (Goldberg, J., sitting by designation).

Global Health Solutions (GHS) and Marc Selner filed patent applications governed by the AIA and covering similar subject matter. Selner filed his application first. GHS filed a petition to institute derivation under 35 U.S.C. § 135, alleging that Selner’s patent claims were derived from Burnam, the single inventor on the GHS application.

During Board proceedings, the parties submitted evidence regarding the timing of their respective conceptions of the claimed inventions, including several email communications. Based on Selner’s evidence, the Board determined that he could not have derived the claimed invention from Burnam. The Board also rejected GHS’s argument that actual reduction to practice was necessary to complete conception of the claimed invention. GHS appealed.

The Federal Circuit explained that while pre-AIA patent interference proceedings required a party alleging derivation to establish prior conception and communication of the invention to the opposing party, the AIA does not expressly define the evidentiary requirements for derivation petitions. Nevertheless, the Court, borrowing from its interference jurisprudence, reasoned that an AIA derivation proceeding similarly requires a showing of both conception and communication of the claimed invention. The Court emphasized, however, that standards articulated in case law from pre-AIA interference proceedings must be applied with caution and considered in light of the AIA’s distinct statutory framework.

The Federal Circuit determined that although the Board focused on which party had proof of the earliest conception (typically the dispositive issue in interference proceedings), it was harmless error. Under the AIA first-to-file framework, determination of the first to invent is not dispositive. The Court noted that because Selner was first to file, he only needed to show that his conception was independent of Burnam’s. Here, Selner’s proof of earlier conception was also proof of conception independent of Burnam, the Court noted.

The Federal Circuit also determined that the Board did not err in rejecting GHS’s argument that Selner failed to demonstrate invention in the absence of evidence of actual reduction to practice. The Court found that the Board appropriately addressed whether such a requirement (often applied in interference proceedings to complicated, unpredictable technology) applied to the invention at issue. The Court explained that Selner’s conception was complete either when he could define the invention by its method of preparation or when he had formed a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention. Selner’s earlier email communication to Burnam supported the finding that Selner had reached the requisite understanding to establish complete conception without the need for actual reduction to practice. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Board’s decision in favor of Selner, finding no derivation.

Practice note: [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Speculation of Harm Isn’t Standing: Not Every Adverse Board Decision Is Ticket to Appeal

by | Jun 12, 2025 | ,

After assessing whether a patent owner had standing to appeal the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s final written decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found no injury in fact to support Article III jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. Dolby Labs. Licensing Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, Case No. 23-2110 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2025) (Moore, Clevenger, Chen, JJ.)

Dolby owns a patent covering a prediction method involving an in-loop filter. Unified Patents, claiming to be the sole real party in interest (RPI), filed an inter partes review (IPR) challenging several patent claims as anticipated and obvious. Dolby contested the challenge, identifying nine additional entities it argued should have been named as RPIs (alleged RPIs). The Board declined to rule on Dolby’s inclusion, however, and proceeded with Unified as the sole RPI.

In its final written decision, the Board found that Unified failed to establish the unpatentability of any challenged claims. Consistent with the US Patent & Trademark Office’s practice, it also declined to address the RPI dispute, finding it immaterial – there was no evidence the alleged RPIs were estopped from filing their own IPRs later or that Unified had advantageously or strategically omitted them. Dolby appealed.

The Federal Circuit explained that when it reviews final Board decisions, its jurisdiction is constrained by Article III’s “Cases” and “Controversies” requirement. To establish standing, an appellant must demonstrate:

  • A concrete and particularized injury in fact that is actual or imminent, not speculative.
  • A causal link between the injury and the appellee’s challenged conduct.
  • A likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable ruling.

Dolby asserted standing to appeal the Board’s refusal to address the RPI dispute based on three grounds:

Its statutory right to appeal as a “dissatisfied” party under 35 U.S.C. § 319.

  • The denial of its right to information under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2).
  • An injury in fact arising from potential breaches of license agreements by the alleged RPIs and possible conflicts of interest involving the Board’s administrative patent judges.

The Federal Circuit rejected Dolby’s argument that it had a right to appeal based solely on dissatisfaction with the Board’s decision. The Court explained that the right to appeal a Board decision under the America Invents Act (AIA) requires Article III standing. The Court also dismissed Dolby’s argument for a statutory right to RPI information, finding that the AIA does not create an informational right. The Court explained that unlike statutes such as the Federal Advisory Committee Act or the Federal Election Campaign Act, which expressly grant public access to information, the AIA lacks a public access provision and explicitly limits judicial review of IPR-related determinations, including RPI disclosures.

As to Dolby’s right to appeal the Board decision, the Federal Circuit found Dolby’s argument too speculative to establish standing, citing four key deficiencies:

Dolby failed to assert that any alleged RPIs were party to license agreements, undermining its claim of potential breach.



read more

Take That Conception Out of the Oven – It’s CRISPR Even If the Cook Doesn’t Know

by | May 22, 2025 | ,

Addressing the distinction between conception and reduction to practice and the requirement for written description in the unpredictable arts, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that proof of conception of an invention does not require that the inventor appreciated the invention at the time of conception. Knowledge that an invention is successful is only part of the case for reduction to practice. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. et al. v. Broad Inst. et al., Case No. 22-1594 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2025) (Reyna, Hughes, Cunningham, JJ.)

The Regents of the University of California, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, Regents) and the Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the President and Fellows of Harvard College (collectively, Broad) were each separately involved in research concerning CRISPR systems that “are immune defense systems in prokaryotic cells that naturally edit DNA.” At issue was the invention of the use of CRISPR systems to modify the DNA in eukaryotic cells. Regents and Broad filed competing patent applications resulting in an interference proceeding under pre-AIA law at the US Patent & Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences to determine which applicant had priority to the invention.

The main issue before the Board was a priority dispute over who first conceived of the invention and sufficiently reduced it to practice under pre-AIA patent law. Regents submitted three provisional patent applications dated May 2012, October 2012, and January 2013 and moved to be accorded the benefit of the earliest filing date, May 2012, for the purpose of determining priority. Alternatively, Reagents sought to be accorded either October 2012 or January 2013 as its priority date. The Board found that Regents’ first and second provisional applications (filed in May and October 2012, respectively) were not a constructive reduction to practice because neither satisfied the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The third provisional application, filed in January 2013, was the first to amount to a constructive reduction to practice of the counts in interference. The Board then ruled that Broad was the senior party for the purposes of priority in the interference proceeding because Broad reduced the invention to practice by October 5, 2012, when a scientist submitted a manuscript to a journal publisher. The Board ruled that Regents failed to prove conception of the invention prior to Broad’s actual reduction to practice. Regents appealed.

Regents argued that in assessing conception, the Board “legally erred by requiring Regents’ scientist to know that their invention would work.” The Federal Circuit agreed and vacated the Board’s decision. As the Court explained, there are three stages to the inventive process: conception, reasonable diligence, and reduction to practice. At the conception stage, “an inventor need not know that his invention will work for conception to be complete.” Rather, knowledge that the invention will work, “necessarily, can rest only on an actual reduction to practice.” The Board therefore legally erred by requiring Regents to know its invention would work to prove [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Detour Ahead: New Approach to Assessing Prior Art Rejections Under § 102(e)

by | Apr 3, 2025 | ,

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit established a more demanding test for determining whether a published patent application claiming priority to a provisional application is considered prior art under pre-America Invents Act (AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as of the provisional filing date, explaining that all portions of the published patent application that are relied upon by the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) to reject the claims must be sufficiently supported in the provisional application. In re Riggs, Case No. 22-1945 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2025) (Moore, Stoll, Cunningham, JJ.)

Several inventors who work for Odyssey Logistics filed a patent application directed to logistics systems and methods for the transportation of goods from various shippers by various carriers across different modes of transport (e.g., by rail, truck, ship, or air). PTO rejected the application under § 102(e) in view of Lettich, which claimed the benefit of a provisional application (Lettich provisional), and as obvious in view of Lettich in combination with the Rojek reference.

The inventors appealed the Lettich rejections to the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, arguing that Lettich did not qualify as prior art under § 102(e). The Board initially agreed with the inventors, but the Examiner assigned to the application requested a rehearing, asserting that the Board applied the incorrect standard for § 102(e) prior art. The Board ultimately issued its decision on the Request for Rehearing, stating that it had jurisdiction over the Examiner’s request and that the Examiner’s arguments regarding Lettich’s status as prior art under § 102(e) “[we]re well taken.” The Board amended its original decision “to determine that Lettich is proper prior art against the instant claims.” The Board then reviewed and affirmed the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections. The inventors appealed.

The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Board’s decision. With respect to whether Lettich qualified as § 102(e) prior art, the Court found that the Board’s analysis was incomplete. The Court concluded that the Board correctly applied the test set forth in the Federal Circuit’s 2015 decision in Dynamic Drinkware v. National Graphics by determining that the Lettich provisional supported at least one of Lettich’s as-published claims. However, the Court found that this test was insufficient because all portions of the disclosure that are relied upon by the PTO to reject the claims must also be sufficiently supported in the priority document. Although the PTO asserted that the Board had conducted this additional analysis, the Federal Circuit disagreed and vacated and remanded for the Board to determine whether the Lettich provisional supported the entirety of the Lettich disclosure that the Examiner relied on in rejecting the claims.



read more

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

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES