United States: The PTAB Trial Tracker

Last Updated: May 10 2017
Article by Cynthia LambertHardman and Sarah Fink

Parallel District Court and PTAB Proceedings

In Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Meyer Prods. LLC, No. 3:14-cv0886-JDP (W.D. Wis. April 18, 2017), the district court for the Western District of Wisconsin drew a clear line regarding petitioner estoppel:  estoppel applies to (1) grounds on which the Board instituted IPR, and (2) grounds of which petitioner was reasonably aware but did not include in its IPR petition, but following the Federal Circuit's Shaw decision, does not apply to grounds that petitioner included in its IPR petition, but on which the Board did not institute IPR. 

The court explained the competing policy considerations underlying estoppel.  With respect to grounds of which defendant was aware  but did not include in its IPR petition, the court found that policy considerations favor a broad application of estoppel.  If a defendant/petitioner is not estopped from pursuing such grounds in a district court, the defendant/petitioner would be incentivized to hold grounds "in reserve in case the IPR does not go defendant's way."  The court found that this would be contrary to the AIA's legislative history, which suggests that IPR was intended to be a complete alternative to litigation. 

With respect to grounds that the defendant/petitioner included in its IPR petition but on which the Board declined institution, the court held that the Federal Circuit's decision in Shaw is "crystal clear" that estoppel does not apply to grounds that were included in the IPR petition, but not instituted.  The court also found that policy considerations favor a narrow application of estoppel.  According to the court, petitioners should not sacrifice judicial review of meritorious invalidity grounds through no fault of their own.  "As long as PTAB has the unreviewable discretion to decline to institute IPR on any ground for any reason, the defendant ought to be able to assert non-instituted grounds in the district court after the IPR is concluded."

Takeaway: The Federal Circuit's Shaw decision continues to influence the estoppel outcome in district courts.  Many courts have followed Shaw's rationale that no estoppel attaches to grounds presented in a petition but denied institution.  Courts have been more variable in deciding whether estoppel applies to grounds that the petitioner reasonably knew about but did not include in its petition.  Here, the court applied estoppel to such grounds.  We expect that the estoppel case law will continue to develop, so parties are well-advised to keep a close eye on this developing body of law.

In Novartis, AG v. Noven Pharms, Inc., No. 2016-1678 (April 4, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's finding that claims were unpatentable as obvious.  Two prior decisions by the District Court for the District of Delaware had found that the claims were not invalid due to obviousness, one of which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit (the second decision was not appealed).  The Federal Circuit explained that although the same prior art references were at issue in both fora, and the same experts testified in both fora, the PTAB and district court relied on different factual records.  The court further explained that, even if the records had been identical, due to the different standards of proof (preponderance of the evidence at the PTAB and clear and convincing evidence at the district court), the two fora could still reach different conclusions.

Takeaway:   This case aptly demonstrates that the different burdens of proof in the PTAB versus the district court, and the lack of deference accorded to judgments between the two fora, can sometimes result in inconsistent judgments on the same patent.  The Federal Circuit was careful to point out that in the Cuozzo case, the Supreme Court expressly acknowledged the possibility of such inconsistent outcomes.  This case is a cautionary tale for patent owners:  even if patent claims survive district court litigation, they can still be vulnerable to cancellation in a later IPR. 

In Microsoft Corp. v. Global Techs., Inc., IPR2016-00663 (Paper 24, P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2017), the Board applied collateral estoppel to prevent a purported patent owner from re-litigating the question of patent ownership, which had already been decided in district court.  

The Board had originally instituted IPR with one Mr. Raniere appearing as the Patent Owner, pursuant to an alleged assignment of the patent from Global Techs. to Mr. Raniere.  The district court had dismissed a parallel litigation involving the same patent because it found that Mr. Raniere, the plaintiff in that case, had no standing to sue for patent infringement, as the assignment was invalid and he was therefore not the owner of the patent.  The Federal Circuit affirmed.  Following the Federal Circuit's affirmance, at Petitioner's request, the Board authorized Petitioner to file a motion to expunge the materials Mr. Raniere had filed as Patent Owner in the IPR.

After considering the four factors that are part of a determination of collateral estoppel [(1) identity of the issues in the prior proceeding; (2) whether the issues were actually litigated; (3) whether the determination of the issues was necessary to the resulting judgment; and (4) whether the party defending against preclusion had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues], the Board held that Mr. Raniere was collaterally estopped from asserting the invalid assignment as evidence of his ownership of the patent.  The Board allowed time for Petitioner to attempt to serve the proper Patent Owner, and will decide the motion to expunge and whether to move forward with the IPR when that time expires.

Takeaway:  Due to the different burdens of proof, the Board has previously rejected the application of collateral estoppel to a district court's decision on patentability.  For example, in Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC, CBM2012-000007 (Paper 58 Jan. 30, 2014), the Board reasoned that because the PTAB and district courts apply different standards of proof, and because the Board had not participated in the prior court proceeding, res judicata and collateral estoppel did not prevent the PTAB from independently deciding the patentability of a patent previously litigated in district court.  This case demonstrates, however, that the Board may apply collateral estoppel to other issues that come before it.

PTAB

In Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Eagle View Techs., Inc., IPR2017-00034 (Paper 9, April 13, 2017), the Board exercised its discretion not to institute inter partes review for reasons unrelated to the merits of the Petitioner's patentability challenge.  This was Petitioner's second IPR petition on the same patent.  In denying the petition, the Board's primary concern was prejudice to the Patent Owner based on "Petitioner's strategy of morphing its challenges over multiple petitions based on the Board's feedback."  (Page 11.)

In evaluating whether to institute the follow-on petition, the Board considered five factors:  (a) whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent; (b) whether the petitioner knew or should have known of the prior art asserted in the later petition when it filed its earlier petition; (c) whether at the time of filing the later petition, the petitioner already received the patent owner's preliminary response to the first petition or received the Board's decision on whether to institute review in the earlier petition; (d) the length of time that elapsed between when the petitioner had the patent owner's or Board's analysis on the earlier petition and when petitioner filed the later petition; and (e) whether the petitioner provided adequate explanation as to why the Board should permit another attack on the same claims of the same patent.

Takeaway:  Petitioners disappointed with the outcome of a first IPR should be aware of these five factors and the Board's views on serial petitions before filing a second petition for a IPR on the same patent.  While the Board has not consistently denied serial petitions for IPR in the past, this case outlines the factors the Board will evaluate when considering whether to use its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d).

In Robert Bosch Tool Corp. v. SD3 LLC, IPR2016-01751(Paper 15, Mar. 22, 2017), the Board's decision not to institute inter partes review depended, in part, on Petitioner's failure to address secondary considerations.  Petitioner was a respondent in an ITC investigation concerning the patent at issue in the IPR.  The ITC case had advanced sufficiently so that Petitioner knew Patent Owner's positions concerning secondary considerations.  The Board explained that since Petitioner had full knowledge of the secondary considerations alleged by Patent Owner prior to filing the petition, Petitioner should have addressed those secondary considerations in its petition.

Takeaway:  Petitioners should review all prior proceedings concerning the challenged patent, and should address in their petitions any secondary considerations patent owner raised in other proceedings.

In IBG, LLC v. Trading Techs. Int'l Inc., CBM2015-00054 (Paper 38, April 7, 2017), the Board denied Petitioner's motion to strike a certain exhibit and a string cite in the Patent Owner Response.  Petitioner had argued that by citing the exhibit and including the string cite, Patent Owner improperly attempted to establish a nexus for its alleged objective evidence of nonobviousness without explaining how the cited evidence established the nexus.  The Board agreed with Petitioner that the Response was an improper attempt to incorporate arguments by reference, but instead of striking the offending exhibit and string cite, determined that it would just "not consider such arguments."  Having decided that it would not consider the exhibit and string cite, the Board also denied Petitioner's request that it be allowed to submit a Reply with an extra 3,000 words.

Takeaway:  The Board strictly enforces its word limit rules, requiring certification of word count to be filed for many documents.  Here, a party's reference to voluminous materials in support of a conclusory assertion was deemed to be an improper incorporation by reference. 

In Green Cross Corp. v. Shire Human Genetic Therapies, Inc., IPR2016-00258 (Paper 91, March 31, 2017), the Board denied Patent Owner's Motion to Seal an exhibit with a figure that was "central to the Final Written Decision."  Patent Owner had relied on the contested exhibit in an effort to antedate a prior art reference, and the Board found that the exhibit was "extensively relied upon by Patent Owner and Patent Owner's experts."  The Board found that the strong public interest in having a complete public record outweighed Patent Owner's interest in keeping this exhibit confidential. 

Takeaway:  Parties must be aware that confidential materials they file in IPRs will not necessarily remain confidential, particularly where the Board and parties rely on such materials.  

Goodwin Procter LLP is one of the nation's leading law firms, with a team of 700 attorneys and offices in Boston, Los Angeles, New York, San Diego, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. The firm combines in-depth legal knowledge with practical business experience to deliver innovative solutions to complex legal problems. We provide litigation, corporate law and real estate services to clients ranging from start-up companies to Fortune 500 multinationals, with a focus on matters involving private equity, technology companies, real estate capital markets, financial services, intellectual property and products liability.

This article, which may be considered advertising under the ethical rules of certain jurisdictions, is provided with the understanding that it does not constitute the rendering of legal advice or other professional advice by Goodwin Procter LLP or its attorneys. © 2013 Goodwin Procter LLP. All rights reserved.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions