Inter Partes Review - Learning From the Denied Petitions
-
Upload
klemchuk-llp -
Category
Law
-
view
365 -
download
1
Transcript of Inter Partes Review - Learning From the Denied Petitions
![Page 1: Inter Partes Review - Learning From the Denied Petitions](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5871b9b41a28ab55058b5387/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
INTER PARTES REVIEW (IPR) – LEARNING FROM THE DENIED
PETITIONSBY:
KIRBY DRAKE
![Page 2: Inter Partes Review - Learning From the Denied Petitions](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5871b9b41a28ab55058b5387/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
IPR Overview
• Involves request to cancel one or more claims of an issued patent on grounds of anticipation and/or obviousness based on patents or printed publications
• Similar to validity challenges in federal district court
• Institution of IPR not as a matter of right
![Page 3: Inter Partes Review - Learning From the Denied Petitions](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5871b9b41a28ab55058b5387/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Petition Requirements
• Must set forth grounds for standing (identify real parties in interest)
• Must identify particularities of challenge• Identify each claim being challenged• Specify how each claim is to be construed• Specify where each element of claim found in
prior art
• Must file within one year after petitioner served with patent infringement complaint
![Page 4: Inter Partes Review - Learning From the Denied Petitions](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5871b9b41a28ab55058b5387/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Optional Patent Owner Response
• Must file within 3 months of petition filing• Possible challenges
• Statutory or time bars• Estoppel based on petitioner or real party in
interest activities• References not prior art, prior art does not
teach or teaches away from combination of references
• Claim construction is unreasonable
![Page 5: Inter Partes Review - Learning From the Denied Petitions](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5871b9b41a28ab55058b5387/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Denial Observations
• Over 50 petitions denied as to all grounds• Variety of patent subject matter (mechanical,
telecom, enzymes, energy drinks, medical, semiconductors)
• Variety of patent owners (Adobe, Boston Univ., Cisco, Eli Lilly, Symantec, Wi-Lan)
• At least 3 grounds included in each denied petition
• Denials authored by various PTAB judges (no more than 6 for a single judge – mostly related patents)
• 90+% of patent owners filed optional response
![Page 6: Inter Partes Review - Learning From the Denied Petitions](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5871b9b41a28ab55058b5387/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Synopsis v. Mentor (IPR2012-00041)
Petitioner Cannot Hide Weaknesses in Petition
• Failed to construe key claim element• PTAB construed key claim element and found
not disclosed in prior art reference
• Failed to state ground or rationale to support obviousness finding• PTAB found petitioner did not clearly explain
reasoning behind unsupported assertions (lack of detail)
![Page 7: Inter Partes Review - Learning From the Denied Petitions](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5871b9b41a28ab55058b5387/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
BSP v. Motio (IPR2013-00307)
Patent Owner Response Can Be Key
• Denial of several anticipation grounds• PTAB referred to patent owner’s response and
agreed that prior art references did not teach all claim elements
• Denial of several obviousness grounds• PTAB agreed with patent owner that rationale
for combining teachings was conclusory and expert declaration did not substantiate positions
![Page 8: Inter Partes Review - Learning From the Denied Petitions](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5871b9b41a28ab55058b5387/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Fontaine v. Raildecks (IPR2013-00361)
Claim Construction Positions Can Be Fatal
• Petitioner argued that claim terms should retain plain and ordinary meaning• Patent owner provided a claim construction for
term “stacking block”• PTAB partially agreed with patent owner, and
using claim construction, concluded prior art references did not disclose a “stacking block”
![Page 9: Inter Partes Review - Learning From the Denied Petitions](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5871b9b41a28ab55058b5387/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Dell v. Acceleron (IPR2013-00361)
Priority Analysis Can Lead to Denial
• Petitioner argued that patent-at-issue not entitled to priority benefit but prior art should get priority benefit• Patent owner responded and identified
disclosure in provisional supporting claims and PTAB agreed
• Priority analysis was fatal to substantive grounds in petition – both patent-at-issue and support for prior art references
![Page 10: Inter Partes Review - Learning From the Denied Petitions](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5871b9b41a28ab55058b5387/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Monsanto v. Pioneer Hi-Bred (IPR2013-00002)
Expert Declaration Must Meet Standards
• Petitioner relied on expert declaration to establish prior art taught and/or provided a reason to defoliate plants within claimed timeframe• PTAB found that declaration failed to provide
sufficient underlying data to support opinions• PTAB also did not credit expert’s conclusions
that prior art allegedly taught enhanced seed vigor
![Page 11: Inter Partes Review - Learning From the Denied Petitions](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5871b9b41a28ab55058b5387/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Procedural Grounds for Denial
• Petition not filed within one year after complaint served (BioDelivery Sciences Int’l v. Monosol RX, IPR2013-00315)
• Time bar because of successor-in-interest actions (Anova Food v. Sandau, IPR2013-00114)
![Page 12: Inter Partes Review - Learning From the Denied Petitions](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5871b9b41a28ab55058b5387/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
PTAB Discretion to Deny IPR Petitions
• Intelligent Bio-Systems v. Illumina Cambridge Limited (IPR2013-00324)• More than one IPR petition on same patent filed• PTAB found grounds in later petition similar to
those raised in petition already granted• PTAB exercised discretion under 35 U.S.C.
314(a) and 35 U.S.C. 325(d) and denied later filed petition
![Page 13: Inter Partes Review - Learning From the Denied Petitions](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5871b9b41a28ab55058b5387/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Best Practice Considerations
• Petitioner• Avoid time bars and/or privity issues• Make expert declarations meaningful• Consider claim construction impact on
substantive grounds• Avoid being duplicative or too hasty in analysis
• Patent Owner• Consider and carefully respond to petition
![Page 14: Inter Partes Review - Learning From the Denied Petitions](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062905/5871b9b41a28ab55058b5387/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)