parallel proceedings Archives

Same patent, same light: Director vacates IPR decision at odds with ITC decision

The director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board final written decision finding challenged claims obvious where the US International Trade Commission, considering the same patent, parties, and obviousness theory, had reached the opposite conclusion. The director found that the Board had not adequately justified departing from the Commission’s analysis. Biofrontera Inc. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Inc., IPR2024-01312 (USPTO Dir. July 29, 2026) (Squires, Dir.)

Biofrontera petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of a Sun Pharmaceutical patent directed to a photodynamic dermatology device. The Board instituted review and ultimately found all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious.

The same patent was also at issue in a Section 337 investigation before the Commission. Sun Pharmaceutical had accused Biofrontera of importing certain photodynamic therapy systems that infringed two patents. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found infringement and recommended an exclusion order. The ALJ also found that Biofrontera had not shown the claims of the patent at issue in the IPR to be obvious.

Before the Board, Biofrontera argued that the ALJ’s determination did not warrant deference because it was not yet final, remained subject to Commission review, and was based on a different evidentiary record and burden of proof. The Board agreed and reached the opposite conclusion on obviousness.

On Director Review, the director rejected the Board’s explanations and vacated the final written decision. The director concluded that the Board had not identified a sufficient basis for reaching a patentability determination inconsistent with the Commission’s assessment of the same obviousness theory.

The director first rejected the Board’s reliance on the non-final status of the ALJ’s determination. By the time of Director Review, the full Commission had upheld the ALJ’s conclusion that Biofrontera had not shown the claims obvious, eliminating the finality concern on which the Board had relied. The director further explained that even a non-final ALJ determination may remain relevant when the Board considers whether parallel proceedings justify terminating or otherwise declining to continue an IPR.

The director also found that differences in the evidentiary records did not adequately explain the conflicting results. Although the IPR included expert testimony that had not been presented at the Commission, the Board did not sufficiently explain why that testimony warranted reaching a different conclusion on the same prior art combination.

Nor did the differing burdens of proof resolve the inconsistency. The director acknowledged that an IPR applies the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, while a Commission respondent challenging patent validity faces a higher burden. But the difference in standards, standing alone, did not explain why the two tribunals reached conflicting factual conclusions regarding the same claim limitation and prior art combination.

Finding no adequate justification for the divergence, the director vacated the Board’s final written decision and dismissed the IPR petition rather than remanding for further proceedings.

Practice Note: Parties litigating patent validity in parallel Board and Commission proceedings should expect prior findings from one forum to receive meaningful consideration in the other, particularly where the same parties, prior [...]

Continue Reading

No Attorneys’ Fees Available for Successful IPR in Parallel Court Proceedings

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that a party that voluntarily elects to pursue parallel proceedings before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board and the district court is not entitled to recover attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (exceptional case doctrine) in connection with the Board proceedings, nor does § 285 entitle a party to hold opposing counsel jointly and severally liable for fees. Dragon Intellectual Property LLC v. Dish Network L.L.C., Case Nos. 2022-1621; -1777; -1622; -1779 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2024) (Moore, C.J.; Stoll, J.) (Bencivengo, J., dissenting).

Dragon sued DISH Network, Sirius XM Radio (SXM) and eight others for patent infringement. The district court stayed proceedings as to DISH and SXM while they pursued inter partes review (IPR) but proceeded with claim construction for the other defendants. Following claim construction, all parties stipulated to noninfringement, and the district court accordingly entered a noninfringement judgment that was subsequently vacated following appeal to the Federal Circuit. Following the Board’s determination that the asserted claims were unpatentable, DISH and SXM filed a motion for attorneys’ fees in the district court proceeding. The district court granted the motion for time spent litigating the district court case but denied for fees incurred solely during the IPR proceedings and recovery from Dragon’s former counsel. DISH and SXM appealed the denial-in-part, and Dragon cross-appealed the grant-in-part.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant-in-part, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring these cases exceptional. The Federal Circuit explained that the vacated noninfringement judgment did not require the district court to ignore its claim construction order in determining exceptionality. The Court further explained that even though Dragon was not entitled to a claim construction “do-over,” the prosecution history disclaimer issue was independently considered during the exceptionality inquiry, and Dragon did not provide any grounds for the conclusion that this constituted an inadequate inquiry.

The Federal Circuit also affirmed the denial of attorneys’ fees with regard to fees incurred during the IPR proceedings and Dragon’s former counsel’s liability for fee awards under § 285.

First, the Federal Circuit rejected DISH and SXM’s argument that § 285 allows recovery of fees incurred during parallel IPR proceedings, principally on the grounds that the IPR proceedings were pursued voluntarily. The Court reasoned that there are many advantages to leveraging IPR proceedings and, therefore, “where a party voluntarily elects to pursue an invalidity challenge through IPR proceedings, we see no basis for awarding IPR fees under § 285.”

Second, the Federal Circuit relied on the statutory text and determined that liability for attorneys’ fees awarded under § 285 does not extend to a party’s counsel. The Court explained that while other statutes explicitly allow parties to recover costs and fees from counsel, § 285 is silent as to who can be liable for a fee award, and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that fees cannot be assessed against counsel.

Sitting by designation, Judge Bencivengo of the US District Court for the Southern District of California dissented [...]

Continue Reading