post-grant review PGR Archives

post-grant review PGR

Associational standing requires concrete, non-speculative harm

by Taylor MacDonald | Oct 16, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision dismissing a lawsuit against the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for lack of associational standing since no member of the association had standing to sue. US Inventor, Inc. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Case No. 24-1396 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2025) (Lourie, Reyna, Stark, JJ.)

US Inventor and National Small Business United (collectively, the plaintiffs) jointly filed a petition for rulemaking at the USPTO to amend the regulations that control the USPTO’s discretion to institute inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) proceedings. The plaintiffs proposed five instances in which the USPTO would have no discretion to institute an IPR or PGR. Separately, the USPTO issued a request for public comments regarding institution discretion two months after the plaintiffs filed their petition.

Eventually, the USPTO denied the petition, citing redundancy with the request for public comment. The USPTO assured the plaintiffs that their request would be considered as a public comment.

In response, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in federal court claiming that the USPTO had committed three errors:

The USPTO’s assurance that the plaintiffs’ requests would be considered “in unspecified ‘future rulemaking’” violated its duty to conclude the matter in an appropriate amount of time, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Under the APA, the USPTO failed to state adequate grounds for denial.
The USPTO violated the America Invents Act (AIA) by “fail[ing] to promulgate notice-and-comment rulemaking.”

The USPTO filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The district court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had neither organizational nor associational standing. The plaintiffs appealed.

Because the issue of associational standing was not specific to patent law, the Federal Circuit applied the law of the US Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, which reviews standing de novo.

Of the three requirements for associational standing (standing of at least one associational member, applicability of the issue to the association’s purposes, and individual member participation not required for the claim or relief), only the first was at issue.

The Federal Circuit concluded that since no member of the plaintiffs’ organizations had standing to sue, the plaintiffs themselves did not have associational standing. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had failed to claim anything more than speculative harm to any member resulting from the USPTO’s denial of plaintiffs’ petition. The Court found the “risk” of patent cancellation during an IPR or PGR proceeding insufficiently “actual or imminent” to afford any member standing to sue.

The Federal Circuit explained that a requisite third-party action outside of the plaintiffs’ control would need to occur before any harm to the plaintiffs’ members could be concretely realized. Third-party actions, including the filing of a petition for an IPR or PGR proceeding, the USPTO’s institution of such proceeding, and the USPTO’s ultimate decision in such proceeding, constitute multiple steps in the chain of events that might result in harm [...]

Continue Reading

The smoke has cleared – and so has your invalidity defense

by Jodi Benassi | Sep 25, 2025 | America Invents Act, Patents

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

Clean Up on Aisle PTAB: Clarification of Discretionary Denial Practice

by Peter Brunovskis, PhD | May 2, 2024 | Patents

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, seeking to codify existing precedent and guidance regarding the Board’s discretionary considerations in denying IPR or PGR petitions. 89 Fed. Reg. 28693 (Apr. 19, 2024).

The NPRM follows a 2020 request for comments and an April 2023 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) that the PTO had hoped to finalize in terms of rulemaking by fall 2023. However, proposals in the ANPR hit a snag following criticism from Congress and more than 14,500 comments from stakeholders and the public, including charges that the PTO Director was overstepping her authority.

The newly proposed rules address:

Briefing on motions for discretionary denial
Factors for discretionary denial
Termination and settlement agreements

Briefing on Motions for Discretionary Denial

A significant aspect of the proposal provides for a separate briefing schedule between a patent owner’s preliminary response (POPR) and a request for discretionary denial, which must be filed no later than one month prior to the deadline for the POPR for briefing on its merits. Under the proposal, the discretionary denial arguments would be excluded from the preliminary response unless otherwise authorized by the Board and are intended to avoid encroaching on the wordcount limits for briefing on the merits. Under the proposed briefing process, there would be a 10-page limit for a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial and for the petitioner opposition, and a five-page limit for the patent owner’s sur-reply.

Factors for Discretionary Denial

The proposed rules address denial of institution for “parallel petitions” or “serial petitions” to provide a framework for considering whether previously presented art or arguments provide grounds for denial. The proposed rules also address treatment of joinder petitions, particularly in relation to already instituted petitions. Parallel petitions are defined in the proposed rule as two or more petitions by the same petitioner challenging the same patent that are filed on or before the filing of a POPR to any of the petitions or on or before the due date for filing a POPR to the first petition. Serial petitions are defined as challenged claims of the same patent overlapping with those in a previously filed petition for IPR, PGR or covered business method patent review.

According to the proposed rules, a parallel petition would not be instituted without a good cause showing of why more than one petition is necessary. Factors for a good cause showing include:

A petitioner’s ranking of desired petitions for consideration
An explanation of differences and materiality between the petitions
The number of challenged patent claims, including those asserted by the patent owner in district court litigation
A priority date dispute
Alternative claim constructions requiring different prior art references on mutually exclusive grounds
Knowledge of asserted claims at the time of filing a petition
Complexity of the technology

Similar considerations would also apply to joinder petitions.

[...]

Continue Reading

Delay Is Okay: Final Written Decisions Can Be Issued After Statutory Deadline

by Jake B. Vallen | Nov 30, 2023 | America Invents Act, Patents

In a matter of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board has the authority to issue a final written decision (FWD) in a post-grant review (PGR) proceeding after the statutory deadline has passed. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Collegium Pharm., Inc., Case No. 22-1482 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2023) (Dyk, Hughes, Stoll, JJ.)

Purdue owns a patent directed to a pharmaceutical formulation meant to prevent or deter the abuse of opioid analgesics through the use of an aversive agent. On March 13, 2018, Collegium filed a PGR petition asserting that the patent claims were invalid. On September 24, 2019, Purdue filed a notice of bankruptcy and imposition of automatic stay, after which the Board stayed the PGR proceeding. The Board’s one-year deadline to issue an FWD under 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(11) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(c) expired on October 4, 2019. After the bankruptcy court lifted the stay on the PGR proceeding on September 1, 2020, Purdue argued that the Board no longer had the authority to issue an FWD because the 18-month statutory deadline to do so had passed. The Board disagreed and issued an FWD finding the challenged claims unpatentable. Purdue appealed.

Purdue argued that the Board did not have authority to issue an FWD after the deadline established by 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(11) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(c) had passed. Purdue advanced four arguments in favor of its proposed interpretation of § 326(a)(11):

The use of “shall” and “requiring” deprives the Board of the authority to issue an FWD.
The “negative words” of “not later than 1 year” and “by not more than 6 months” indicate a loss of authority.
The statutory language in § 326(a)(11) requires PGR proceedings to be conducted “in accordance with” the Board’s jurisdictional grant in 35 U.S.C. § 6, and therefore the Board’s jurisdiction expires when the deadline in § 326(a)(11) expires.
The exceptions in § 326(a)(11) for “good cause” and “joinder” demonstrate that those are the only limited instances where the Board may issue an FWD after the statutory deadline.

None of Purdue’s arguments persuaded the Federal Circuit. The Court reasoned that § 328(a) plainly requires the issuance of an FWD and that “[h]ad Congress meant to deprive the agency of power in § 326(a)(11), it knew how to do it” vis-à-vis the use of specific language, like the language it used in other sections of the America Invents Act (AIA), such as 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 321(c), both of which specifically deny agency power after a temporal deadline.

The Federal Circuit also considered the legislative history of § 316(a)(11), recognizing that Congress created PGR and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings when enacting the AIA to, among other things, replace the “lengthy and inefficient” reexamination proceeding. The Court reasoned that prohibiting an FWD after the statutory deadline would “force” parties to commence district court litigation—an act contrary to the purpose of the AIA, which [...]

Continue Reading

Status Quo Has Few Defenders at PREVAIL Act Senate Subcommittee Hearing

by Christopher M. Bruno and Ian J. Howard | Nov 16, 2023 | America Invents Act, Patents

On November 8, 2023, the US Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property heard testimony from four witnesses on the proposed Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act. Although the PREVAIL Act includes several provisions regarding transparency and independence, its thrust is its dramatic alteration of Patent Trial & Appeal Board post-grant review (PGR) and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, including their relationship to co-pending district court litigation, with the goal of incentivizing innovation by reducing costs and making such challenges less likely to be successful.

We previously reported on the provisions of the proposed PREVAIL Act when it was introduced. The biggest changes under consideration include the introduction of a standing requirement, a heightened burden of proof from preponderance-of-the-evidence to clear-and-convincing evidence, a stronger estoppel to thwart costly and unnecessary co-pending actions in court and at the Board, and the separation of the Board’s institution and decision-making functions.

Three witnesses spoke in favor of the PREVAIL Act before the subcommittee, emphasizing that the Board failed to live up to the purposes and intentions of the America Invents Act (AIA). These witnesses were Representative Lamar Smith, a co-sponsor of the AIA; Michelle Armond, co-founder of the law firm Armond Wilson LLP and a practitioner before the Board; and Joseph Kiani, founder of Masimo Industries.

Smith testified that Congress enacted the AIA because it recognized the potential for Board proceedings to be abused, and according to Smith, that is exactly what has happened. Each of the three witnesses testified that well-funded litigants have exploited Board procedures to overwhelm small businesses by forcing them into expensive duplicative proceedings in multiple forums. For example, Kiani posited that the Board posed an existential threat to startups, attributing findings of invalidity against his company’s patents to the AIA’s invalidation-friendly procedures.

Armond explained to the subcommittee how the PREVAIL Act would streamline Board proceedings and harmonize them with district court and International Trade Commission (ITC) litigation. According to Armond, in the wake of the AIA, both the Board and district courts have failed to offer uniform standards for deciding whether to stay a proceeding in their forum pending resolution of a parallel proceeding in the other. The PREVAIL Act would resolve this problem by requiring litigants to select only one forum in which they may raise their invalidity arguments. Armond argued that using the same clear-and-convincing-evidence standard in Board review proceedings and other litigation would harmonize the Board with district courts and the ITC by ensuring that different forums reach the same invalidity decision.

Joseph Matal, former US Patent & Trademark Office interim director and acting solicitor, and current principal of Clear IP, LLC, was the lone dissenting witness at the hearing. According to Matal, the PREVAIL Act’s proposal to require a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard in Board review proceedings is misguided because Board judges possess the requisite agency expertise to second-guess patent examination decisions. Additionally, Board judges often have more time to evaluate the patents and more information than the examiner. According to Matal, [...]

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

Not “Use It or Lose It”: Even if Unexercised, Director’s Authority over Institution Decisions Remains

by Christopher M. Bruno | Aug 25, 2022 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied mandamus relief, finding that a party is not entitled to petition the director for review of a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) decision denying institution of an inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) proceeding. This ruling reflects the Court’s ongoing consideration of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., which held that Board judges cannot constitutionally render final decisions in IPRs without US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director oversight. Click here for our discussion of the case on remand, for which the Federal Circuit just denied en banc rehearing. In re Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Case No. 22-145 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2022) (Dyk, Chen, JJ.) (Reyna, J., concurring).

After being sued by Centripetal Systems for patent infringement, Palo Alto Networks filed petitions for IPR and PGR of some of the asserted patents. The Board denied institution, and Palo Alto Networks filed requests for Director rehearing. Although the PTO acknowledged receipt of the request, it informed Palo Alto Networks that the Director was not considering requests for rehearing of institution decisions “at this time.” Thereafter, Palo Alto Networks sought a writ of mandamus from the Federal Circuit. Between the request for mandamus and the Court’s decision, the PTO issued guidance explaining that although the PTO was not considering requests for rehearing, “the Director has always retained and continues to retain the authority to review such decisions sua sponte after issuance (at the Director’s discretion),” and indeed, exercised its authority to initiate sua sponte review since.

The Federal Circuit rejected Palo Alto Networks’ claim that the Director’s refusal to consider petitions for rehearing of institution decisions amounted to an abdication of authority prohibited by the Appointments Clause. Even assuming that institution decisions were “final decisions on how to exercise executive power” implicating the Appointments Clause, the Court found that the Director maintains statutory and regulatory authority to review institution decisions (unlike in Arthrex), and that the Board renders such decisions only based on the Director’s delegation of authority (also unlike Arthrex). Accordingly, the structural authority maintained by the Director is sufficient, even if such authority goes unexercised, according to the Court.

Writing separately, Judge Reyna agreed that no Appointments Clause violation had occurred but on different grounds. Although Judge Reyna noted that a categorical rejection of requests for rehearing by the Director might raise constitutional concerns, he concluded that mandamus was inappropriate for several reasons. First, the Director’s caveat that she refused to accept requests “at this time” did not constitute a categorical refusal but rather an exercise of discretion. Second, the Director’s invocation of her sua sponte authority to review belied a lack of exercise of discretion. The Director did in fact exercise sua sponte authority to consider Palo Alto Networks’ request, even though briefing in the Federal Circuit was pending, and thus a writ of mandamus was inappropriate.

Clarification or Raising the Bar? PTO Director Issues New Guidance for Discretionary PTAB Denials

by Thomas DaMario | Jun 30, 2022 | America Invents Act, Patents

On June 21, 2022, US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director Katherine K. Vidal issued a memorandum addressing interim procedures for discretionary denials in America Invents Act (AIA)-post grant proceedings at the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board). In 2020, in order to minimize the potential conflict between the Board and parallel district court proceedings, the PTO designated the Board’s opinion in Apple v. Fintiv as precedential. Since Fintiv, the Board has issued several discretionary denials of institution based on parallel proceedings in district (and in some cases other administrative) courts. Director Vidal’s memo seeks to provide additional guidance on the PTO’s interpretation of Fintiv and its progeny and addresses multiple factors that were previously left to individual administrative law judge (ALJ) interpretation.

The memo includes rendering an initial evaluation of the merits of the petition. In particular, the Board will not deny institution of an inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) under Fintiv when a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability. This standard is higher than the institution standard, which requires only that “there is a reasonable likelihood that petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” While the memo does not elaborate on the evidence required to meet this compelling standard, numerous decisions were cited as illustrative. (See: e.g., Illumina Inc. v. Trs. of Columbia Univ., IPR2020-00988, Paper 20 (PTAB Dec. 8, 2020); Synthego Corp. v. Agilent Techs., Inc., IPR2022-00402, Paper 11 (May 31, 2022); Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Scramoge Tech., Ltd., IPR2022-00241, Paper 10 (June 13, 2022).)

Additionally, Director Vidal confirmed that Fintiv does not apply to parallel proceedings before the International Trade Commission nor where there has been a stipulation not to pursue the same grounds in a district court proceeding. The stipulation applies to grounds that are actually raised in the petition and any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition, suggesting that there may be some dispute later in the district court proceeding about what grounds “could have reasonably been raised in the petition.”

Finally, the memo clarified the second factor of the Fintiv analysis: the speed with which the district court case may go to trial and be resolved. The Board will consider not only the scheduled trial date, but also the median time-to-trial for the particular district court, number of cases before the specific district court judge and the speed and availability of other dispositions.

Practice Note: While the standard for institution has not changed, the new compelling standard effectively ups the bar for any IPR, PGR or covered business method (CBM) proceedings where there is a parallel district court case. Prior to filing a new petition, patent challengers should objectively weigh the merits of their challenge or consider stipulating not to pursue the same invalidity grounds in the parallel district court proceeding.

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS