Inter Partes Review (IPR) Archives

Inter Partes Review (IPR)

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

by Tessa Kroll | Aug 17, 2023 | 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 | Jul 27, 2023 | 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 | Jun 22, 2023 | 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 | Jun 15, 2023 | 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. | Jun 15, 2023 | 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 | May 18, 2023 | 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

PTO Requests Comments on Revisions to AIA Trial Proceedings

by Amol Parikh | Apr 27, 2023 | America Invents Act, Patents

On April 21, 2023, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) announced that it is seeking public input on proposed modifications to the rules of practice for inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post grant reviews (PGRs) before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board to better align the practices with the PTO’s mission to promote and protect innovation and investment in the same and to provide a less expensive alternative to district court litigation to resolve certain patentability issues while also protecting against patentee harassment.

The PTO is considering promulgating rules that the Director—and, by delegation, the Board—will use to do the following:

Exercise the Director’s discretion to institute IPRs and PGRs
Provide a procedure for separate briefing on discretionary denial that will allow parties to address relevant issues for discretionary denial without encroaching on the page limit to address the merits of a case
Give petitioners the ability to pay additional fees for a higher word-count limit
Clarify that all settlement agreements, including pre-institution settlement agreements, are required to be filed with the Board.

To create clear, predictable rules where possible, as opposed to balancing tests that decrease certainty, the PTO is considering changes that would provide for discretionary denials of petitions in the following categories, subject to certain conditions and circumstances as discussed further in the Official Notice:

Petitions filed by certain for-profit entities
Petitions challenging under-resourced patent owner patents where the patentee has brought or is attempting to bring products to market
Petitions challenging patent claims previously subject to a final adjudication upholding the patent claims against patentability challenges in district court or in post-grant proceedings before the PTO
Serial petitions
Petitions raising previously addressed prior art or arguments
Parallel petitions
Petitions challenging patents subject to ongoing parallel litigation in district court.

The PTO also seeks comments on proposed threshold definitions that apply to one or more of these categories of petitions subject to discretionary denials. Those definitions set forth the criteria used to determine the following:

What constitutes a “substantial relationship” between entities sufficient to trigger or avoid discretionary denial
When claim sets are deemed to have “substantial overlap” with challenged claims
What constitutes “compelling merits” sufficient to trigger an exception to discretionary denial.

For example, one proposal with respect to the “substantial relationship” is a requirement that a patent owner and petitioner disclose anyone with an ownership interest in the patent owner or petitioner, any government funding related to the patent, any third-party litigation funding support, and any stake any party has in the outcome of the America Invents Act (AIA) proceeding or any parallel proceedings on the challenged claims.

Additional changes being considered by the PTO include the following:

Absent exceptional circumstances, requiring petitioners to file a stipulation that neither they nor their privy or real parties in interest have filed prior post-grant proceedings (PGRs, IPRs, covered business methods or ex parte reexaminations) on the challenged claims
If petitioners’ post-grant proceeding is instituted, requiring that [...]

Continue Reading

Console Yourself: Patent Owner Bears IPR Estoppel Burden

by James M. Oehler | Apr 13, 2023 | Patents

Addressing for the first time the standard and burden of proof for the “reasonably could have raised” requirement for inter partes review (IPR) estoppel to apply, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that a patent owner bears the burden of proving that an IPR petitioner is estopped from using invalidity grounds that a skilled searcher conducting a diligent search reasonably could have been expected to discover. Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., Case Nos. 21-2296; -2297; 22-1070 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2023) (Lourie, Stark, JJ.) (Clevenger, J., dissenting).

Ironburg sued Valve for infringing Ironburg’s video game controller patent. Valve responded by filing an IPR petition in 2016. The Patent Trial & Appeal Board partially instituted on three grounds but declined to institute on two other grounds (the Non-Instituted Grounds), as was permitted prior to the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu. Valve did not seek remand pursuant to SAS, which would have allowed the Board to consider the Non-Instituted Grounds. In the district court litigation, Valve alleged invalidity based on the Non-Instituted Grounds and grounds Valve learned of from a third party’s IPR filed after Valve filed its IPR (the Non-Petitioned Grounds). Ironburg filed a motion asserting that Valve was estopped, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), from asserting both the Non-Instituted Grounds and the Non-Petitioned Grounds. The district court granted Ironburg’s motion in full, removing all of Valve’s invalidity defenses. After trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that Valve willfully infringed the patent. Valve appealed.

35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) precludes an IPR petitioner from asserting invalidity during a district court proceeding based on “any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that [IPR].” The Federal Circuit first addressed the legal standard needed to meet the “reasonably could have raised” requirement for IPR estoppel. The Court found that the “skilled searcher” standard used by several district courts is appropriate, as opposed to a higher “scorched earth” search standard. The “skilled searcher” standard is consistent with the § 315(e)(2) statutory requirement of discovering prior art references that “reasonably could have been raised.”

The Federal Circuit next addressed which party has the burden to prove what prior art references a skilled searcher reasonably would, or would not, have been expected to discover. The district court placed the burden on Valve, the party challenging the patent’s validity, and determined that Valve did not show how difficult it was to find the Non-Petitioned Grounds that Valve did not initially uncover. The Court noted that the third party that did find the Non-Petitioned Grounds may have used a “scorched earth” search, which would make its discovery of the Non-Petitioned Grounds irrelevant to estoppel. The Court concluded that the patent owner has the burden of proving what a skilled searcher reasonably would have found because the patent holder is looking to benefit from estoppel. The Court explained that this conclusion is consistent with the practice of placing the burden on the party asserting [...]

Continue Reading

Disclaiming Claim Scope: Could the Patentee Have Anticipated This?

by Jake B. Vallen | Apr 6, 2023 | Patents

In the most recent decision in the Apple/VirnetX saga, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a remand ruling from the Patent Trial & Appeal Board finding the challenged claims of VirnetX’s patents unpatentable. VirnetX Inc. v. Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd., Case No. 2020-2271 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 30, 2023) (Moore, C.J.; Hughes, Stark, JJ.) (nonprecedential).

VirnetX owns two patents relating to a “secure mechanism for communicating over the internet.” The patents relate to a system in which a DNS module “intercepts . . . and determines whether [a] request is for a secure site.” The system creates a VPN if the proxy determines that the request is for a secure site. If the proxy determines that the request is not for a secure site, it forwards the request to a conventional DNS.

Mangrove, Apple and Black Swamp (collectively, Mangrove) petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) challenging various claims of the patents. The Board found that all the challenged claims were unpatentable as anticipated by Kiuchi or obvious in view of Kiuchi and other references. VirnetX appealed to the Federal Circuit (Mangrove Appeal). In that appeal, the Federal Circuit determined that, contrary to the Board’s finding, when VirnetX distinguished Aventail during reexamination of one of the patents, VirnetX disclaimed “a system in which a client computer communicates with an intermediate server via a singular, point-to-point connection.” As a consequence of the prosecution disclaimer, the Court found that the claims “require[s] direct communication between the client and target computers.” The Court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the case for the Board to determine further factual questions regarding Kiuchi because “substantial evidence does not support the Board’s finding that the C-HTTP name server of Kiuchi performs the functions of the claimed DNS proxy module.”

Following the Mangrove Appeal, the Board again found that Kiuchi—the only prior art reference at issue in the present appeal—discloses a “secure network” for the transfer of patient information in a hospital setting and teaches a “direct-communication VPN between the client and target.” As a result, the Board concluded that Kiuchi anticipates all the challenged claims. VirnetX again appealed.

The Federal Circuit first addressed the Board’s conclusion that “Kiuchi teaches a direct-communication VPN and is therefore within the scope of the claims of VirnetX’s … patent, and not an indirect-communication VPN, which would have brought Kiuchi within the scope of VirnetX’s disclaimer.” The Court agreed with the Board that “Kiuchi discloses direct communication that satisfies the claimed VPN.” Specifically, “Kiuchi’s user agent does not communicate with the client-side proxy using a singular, point-to-point connection because the user agent addresses the desired endpoint, and the VPN provides the required message routing for the user agent to receive a response from the desired endpoint.” Moreover, the Court reasoned that Kiuchi’s proxy servers forward data packets and that Kiuchi teaches “the ability to address data to a particular computer,” consistent with the scope of the claims.

Next, the Federal Circuit addressed the Board’s [...]

Continue Reading

No One Likes a Sore Winner: IPR Prevailing Party Can’t Appeal

by Kathleen Lynch | Mar 23, 2023 | Patents

Reaffirming precedent, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated the rule that the prevailing party in an inter partes review (IPR) cannot appeal a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision. Termax Co. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., Case Nos. 23-1252; -1254 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 8, 2023) (Dyk, Reyna, Chen, JJ.)

Illinois Tool Works (ITW) asserted that Termax had infringed a patent directed to an automobile fastener. Termax challenged the asserted patent by filing a petition for IPR. The petition was granted, and ultimately the Board agreed with Termax that all the challenged claims of ITW were unpatentable. Both parties appealed.

ITW moved to voluntarily dismiss its own appeal and to dismiss Termax’s cross-appeal. Termax opposed, arguing that the Board erred in its construction of certain claim limitations that have also been incorporated into a new ITW patent.

The Federal Circuit dismissed both appeals. Citing what it called a “familiar rule,” the Court stated that the winner in a lower court or other tribunal cannot ordinarily seek relief in the appellate court. The Court was not persuaded by Termax’s argument that the Board erred in its construction of certain claim limitations, noting that Termax sought to appeal the constructions in the hopes that a Federal Circuit decision in its favor would “collaterally estop Illinois Tool Works from asserting those newly issued claims.” However, the Court refused to hear the appeal prematurely, stating that if ITW asserts the claims of its new patent against Termax in the future, Termax can address the issue at that time.

Practice Note: While an IPR can be a powerful tool for accused infringers, it is not without future risks.