Inter Partes Review (IPR) Archives

Inter Partes Review (IPR)

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

By Amol Parikh on Sep 14, 2023
Posted In Patents

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

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

By Kyle Sorenson, PhD on Sep 7, 2023
Posted In America Invents Act, Patents

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

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

By Tessa Kroll on Aug 24, 2023
Posted In Patents

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

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

By Cecilia Choy, Ph.D. on Aug 17, 2023
Posted In Patents

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:

In a federal criminal, civil or administrative hearing in which the government or its agent is a party
In a congressional, Government Accountability Office (GAO) or other Federal Report hearing, audit or investigation
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

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

By Tessa Kroll on Aug 17, 2023
Posted In Patents

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

No Need for Unnecessary RPI Determinations

By Joshua Revilla on Jul 27, 2023
Posted In Patents

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.

First Rule of the PTAB? Play by the Rules

By Christian Tatum on Jun 22, 2023
Posted In Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed two Patent Trial & Appeal Board decisions holding the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious, even though the Board declined to consider evidence of antedating and found that the claims lacked written description support. Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, Case Nos. 22-1269; -1270 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2023) (Lourie, Bryson, Reyna, JJ.)

Parus Holdings owns two patents related to an interactive voice system to request information from a voice web browser. Google (among others) petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of the patents.

During the IPR proceedings, the Board found that a publication (Kovatch) was prior art to the challenged patents. In reaching that decision, the Board declined to consider Parus’s arguments and evidence of an earlier conception and reduction to practice because they were only presented via incorporation by reference in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). The Board ruled that Parus failed to meet its burden of production on antedating.

The Board also found that the publication of the application to which Parus’s challenged patents claimed priority (Kurganov-262) was prior art because the common specification failed to provide written description support for the challenged claims. Parus appealed the Board’s decision, raising two main arguments.

First, Parus contended that the Board erred when it declined to consider Parus’s arguments and evidence on antedating. Parus argued that § 42.6(a)(3)’s prohibition on incorporation by reference did not warrant the Board’s decision because Parus, as patent owner, need not have submitted a response at all. Parus also argued that the Federal Circuit’s 2017 decision in Aqua Products mandates that the Board consider all record evidence, regardless of the manner of presentation. The Federal Circuit rejected Parus’s arguments in turn.

Regarding Parus’s violation of the incorporation by reference rule, the Federal Circuit explained that Parus had assumed an affirmative burden of production when it chose to submit a response to antedate Kovatch. Along with that burden came other responsibilities, such as complying with the US Patent & Trademark Office’s (PTO) rules and regulations, including § 42.6(a)(3). The Court further explained that this burden of production could not be met without some combination of citing evidence with specificity and explaining the significance of the cited material. Parus did neither.

The Federal Circuit also rejected Parus’s argument that the Board is required by law to review all evidence in the record. The Court clarified that, while its Aqua Products holding requires the Board to decide all issues properly before it, nothing in Aqua Products requires the Board to review evidence or issues not introduced or introduced in violation of the Board’s rules. As the Court noted, “[t]he burden of production cannot be met simply by throwing mountains of evidence at the Board without explanation or identification of the relevant portions of that evidence. One cannot reasonably expect the Board to sift through hundreds of documents, thousands of pages, to find the relevant facts.”

Parus also argued that the Board exceeded its statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. [...]

Continue Reading

District Court Finding Doesn’t Preclude PTAB Proceeding

By Mike Baldwin on Jun 15, 2023
Posted In America Invents Act, Patents

The Patent Trial & Appeal Board refused to terminate an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, finding that collateral estoppel and claim preclusion do not apply to previous findings from a district court proceeding. Patent Quality Assurance, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLC, IPR2021-01229, Paper No. 128 (PTAB June 3, 2023) (Melvin, Giannetti, McNamara, APJs).

Patent Quality Assurance filed a petition for IPR on July 7, 2021, against a patent owned by VLSI. The Board granted institution. The Board later instituted on a substantively identical petition filed by Intel and granted Intel’s motion for joinder to add Intel to the Patent Quality Assurance IPR proceeding. Prior to the July 7, 2021, petition, litigation between VLSI and Intel resulted in a jury verdict that Intel infringed certain claims of the challenged patent. Invalidity was not presented to the jury. On May 10, 2022, the district court entered final judgment, including a finding that Intel had not proven invalidity. Based on the district court’s judgment, VLSI asserted that claim preclusion barred Intel from challenging validity of the asserted patent in IPR and sought termination of the IPR as to Intel.

VLSI argued that the elements of claim preclusion were met because both VLSI and Intel were parties to both cases, the district court entered a final judgment for infringement and no finding of invalidity, and the effect of Intel’s IPR was to collaterally attack the final judgment in the first case. Intel responded, arguing that claim preclusion does not apply to IPRs from the district court under the America Invents Act (AIA).

The Board agreed with Intel that estoppel did not apply. Intel argued that if Congress had intended for IPRs to be precluded by claims in a parallel district court, it would have identified that as one of the estoppel circumstances in the AIA. VLSI argued that the Supreme Court’s 1991 decision in Astoria Federal sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino applies only when an agency decision precludes a later court decision and, therefore, common-law claim preclusion would apply to the IPR proceeding barring a plain statement from Congress showing intent to overcome preclusion.

The Board disagreed, noting that the cited case law related to statutes where a later statute superseded the earlier one and required a clear and manifest intent to repeal the earlier statute. The Board found that there was no express intent to repeal the earlier statute regarding estoppel, and the jurisprudence constantly counsels against repeal “by implication.” The Board also crucially noted that there was no statutory conflict between the earlier and later statutes, and the question, therefore, was whether (under Astoria) the AIA showed congressional intent that common-law claim preclusion should apply to IPRs.

Reading 35 U.S.C. § 315(e), the codification of the AIA’s estoppel provision, the Board noted that the statute clearly imposes estoppel on future agency and district proceedings but says nothing about applying adjudications in district court proceedings at the Board. As the Board explained, there would be no reason for § 315(e) to spell [...]

Continue Reading

Obviously Prima Facie Case Overcome by Secondary Considerations

By Benjamin Ediger, Ph.D. on Jun 15, 2023
Posted In Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, holding that the Board did not err in finding certain challenged claims nonobvious and not unpatentable based on a showing of several objective criteria of nonobviousness and a nexus of the evidence to a commercial product embodying the claimed invention. Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L., Case No. 21-2357 (Fed. Cir. June 05, 2023) (Moore, C.J.; Lourie, Dyk, JJ.) and Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L., Case No. 21-2359 (Fed. Cir. June 05, 2023) (Moore, C.J.; Lourie, Dyk, JJ.)

Teleflex developed and patented a novel catheter-based stenosis intervention system that successfully mitigated long-standing risks intrinsic to existing catheter-based intervention systems, in particular damage to the coronary artery from guide catheter dislodgement or a catheter’s distal tip (i.e., the end of the catheter farthest from the insertion site). The preferred embodiments incorporated into Teleflex’s extremely successful GuideLiner products comprised a proximal substantially rigid portion (yellow), a reinforced portion (blue) and a distal flexible tip (pink), as illustrated below.

The catheters were sized so they could be inserted through standard guide catheters and thus were coined guide extension catheters. This innovative nesting feature increased guide catheter backup support while the guide extension catheter’s soft distal end was less likely to cause tissue damage once deeply inserted into patients. Teleflex’s guide extension catheters also were optimized for receiving interventional cardiological devices. This optimized function was a combination of the catheter’s coaxial lumen, that lumen’s diameter being no more than one French (i.e., 1/3 mm) less than the diameter of the guide catheter, and a proximal side opening that featured a double incline design like that illustrated above.

Teleflex’s GuideLiner was introduced in 2009 and enjoyed “undisputed commercial success and industry praise.” In 2019, Medtronic introduced its competing guide extension catheter (Telescope) and filed six inter partes review (IPR) petitions against Teleflex’s extension guide catheter family. Three of Medtronic’s petitions asserted that the challenged claims in three of Teleflex’s patents were obvious over the evacuation sheath assembly with a distal side opening used to aspirate embolic material while occluding blood flow using sealing balloons disclosed in a prior art reference (Ressemann). The other three petitions challenged claims of the other Teleflex patents as being obvious over a support catheter for delivering angioplasty balloons disclosed in a prior art reference (Kontos).

Medtronic specifically asserted that the following three elements of Teleflex’s claimed catheters were obvious:

A proximal side opening. Medtronic argued that it would have been obvious to replace the proximal funnel structure of Kontos’s support catheter with the distal side opening of Ressemann’s evacuation sheath assembly.
A catheter diameter that is no more than one French less than a corresponding guide catheter. Medtronic argued that in view of prior art mother-and-child dual catheter systems in which the child catheter’s diameter is no [...]

Continue Reading

Pending Appeal Does Not Divest Board of Statutory Authority to Institute IPRs

By Amol Parikh on May 18, 2023
Posted In America Invents Act, Patents

In a case involving sua sponte review, the Director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) vacated an inter partes review (IPR) decision denying institution, found that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board had statutory authority to institute IPR review of a claim that had been previously found invalid by a district court under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (but under appeal), and remanded the proceeding for the Board to consider whether discretionary denial was appropriate. Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC v. Brunswick Corp., IPR2022-01366, -01367, -01368, -01369, -01424 (PTO May 2, 2023) (Vidal, Dir.).

Brunswick owns several patents related to marine vessels. Volvo filed IPR petitions challenging the patents, which the Board ultimately denied. Prior to the Board’s decision, the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia determined that claim 1 in each of the challenged patents was directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and thus was invalid under § 101. In denying institution, the Board concluded that it lacked authority to institute the IPRs because the challenged claims were no longer in effect and the America Invents Act (AIA) only permits a petitioner to challenge a claim, noting that “when given its plain and ordinary meaning, § 311(b) provides that only claims that are in effect may be annulled.” Although Brunswick appealed the district court’s decision, the Board determined that the challenged claims were finally adjudicated. Thus, the Board lacked authority to institute the requested IPR. The Board also determined that the multi-factor Fintiv analysis for discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 214(a) was inapplicable here in view of the district court’s invalidity finding.

The Director reviewed the Board’s decision sua sponte and vacated the Board’s institution decision with instructions to analyze Fintiv factors 1 through 5 in view of the parallel district court proceeding.

The Director first addressed the Board’s § 311(b) analysis. The Director concluded that in finding the district court’s invalidity determination to be a final adjudication, the Board appeared to have borrowed from collateral estoppel principles. The Director found, however, that these principles do not apply to § 311(b) nor was there any assertion that Volvo was collaterally estopped from pursuing IPRs. The Director also determined that the challenged claims were not fully adjudicated since the district court’s decision was subject to further judicial review. Thus, the Director found that the Board had statutory authority to institute the IPRs.

Next, the Director addressed the Board’s Fintiv analysis, finding that the Board improperly interpreted Fintiv as limited to its exercise of discretion in the context of ongoing parallel district court litigation where final judgment has not yet been entered. The Director explained that the Fintiv analysis applied where, as here, the claims remain subject to further review on appeal. The Director instructed the Board to evaluate the Fintiv factors on remand and instructed that if the Board determines that these factors favor discretion to deny institution, the Board should then consider whether the case on the merits is compelling (consistent with the
Continue Reading

Older Posts »

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS