United States: Changes Ahead For The PTAB In 2018

2018 promises to be an important year for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Many in the patent bar will wait with bated breath for the U.S. Supreme Court to determine the future of the PTAB's trial jurisdiction in Oil States. Assuming trials at the PTAB continue, the Supreme Court may substantially alter, in SAS Institute, the process by which the PTAB conducts these trials.

Already in 2018, the Federal Circuit has modified America Invents Act (AIA) trial jurisprudence by delivering its en banc ruling in Wi-Fi One, determining that the PTAB's time-bar determinations are reviewable on appeal after a final written decision. Additionally, the motion-to-amend practice in AIA trials will continue to evolve, as the Federal Circuit provides further guidance beyond its en banc decision in Aqua Products and precedential decision in Bosch. Furthermore, the PTAB may itself alter motion-to-amend practice, either by regulation or by further guidance.

All in all, 2018 promises to be an impactful year for the PTAB. My prediction, however, is that we are likely to look back at this time next year and find that AIA trial proceedings operate much as they do now.

The Supreme Court Will Determine the Fate of AIA Trials

The biggest date in 2017 for the PTAB may be remembered as Nov. 27, 2017, the date on which the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Green's Energy Group, LLC. In this appeal, the Supreme Court is considering whether inter partes review (IPR) proceedings violate the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury. Similar to 2017, the biggest PTAB date of 2018 will likely be the day on which the Supreme Court issues a decision in Oil States and deems IPRs to be either constitutional or unconstitutional. The latter would represent a significant disruption in the patent law landscape.

Some were surprised at the level of questioning from the justices during the Oil States oral arguments. A number of the justices, including Justices Roberts, Kennedy, and Breyer expressed concern regarding whether IPRs properly protected the due process rights of the parties involved. Justice Gorsuch went further and suggested that the constitutionality question had already been decided by the Supreme Court in McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. C. Aultman & Co., 169 U.S. 606 (1898), which Gorsuch said held that only Article III courts could set aside a patent. See Hearing Transcript at 15:6–16.

Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan seemed more comfortable, however, with the ability of the PTAB to serve as an error-correction mechanism for the Patent and Trademark Office's grant of patents. Justice Ginsburg stated that "[t]here must be some means by which the Patent Office can correct the errors that it's made." Id. at 3:25–4:5. Furthermore, Justice Sotomayor placed significance on the ability to appeal an AIA trial decision to the Federal Circuit, stating that "what saves this" is that a patent invalidity finding "can be appealed to court." Id. at 34:5–13. In the likely event that at least Justices Breyer and Kennedy agree with these justices, 2018 will not likely represent the end to AIA trials.

Partial Institution and Related Final Written Decisions Will Likely Continue

The bright spotlight of a Supreme Court constitutionality determination casts a big shadow, as exemplified by the almost forgotten SAS Institute v. Matal, the other PTAB appeal argued before the Supreme Court the same day as Oil States. Although most would agree that the odds of the decision in SAS Institute having an impact are greater than in Oil States, the case has not received the level of attention given to Oil States. For example, 58 amicus briefs were filed in Oil States and only two were filed in SAS Institute.

SAS appealed to the Supreme Court on the basis that the PTAB improperly issued a final decision on less than all of the claims challenged by SAS. If the Supreme Court determines that the statute requires the board to issue a final decision on all claims challenged in the petition, it might substantially alter how the PTAB conducts AIA trials. For example, the PTAB might issue leaner institution decisions, simply determining whether the petitioner has established the 35 U.S.C. § 314 threshold for at least one challenged claim and instituting on all grounds for all claims. This "thumbs up or thumbs down" institution practice could greatly increase the number of issues in many trials, increasing the cost for the parties. Alternatively, the PTAB might simply repeat the determination made denying institution on certain claims in the final written decision, assuming such practice would comport with guidance from the Supreme Court in the SAS Institute decision.

SAS argued before the Supreme Court that 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) requires the "Board to issue a final written decision as to every claim challenged by the petitioner." Justice Alito asked: "Where is there any ambiguity [in 318(a)]?" Hearing Transcript at 35:25–36:7. Justice Ginsburg inquired, however, as to the meaning of the introductory phrase of 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), which states: "[i]f an inter partes review is instituted." Id. at 4:1–3. Perhaps the justices will read the statute to apply only to those claims subject to inter partes review, permitting the board to grant partial institution and render a final decision on only the instituted claims.

Justices Alito and Kagan approached the issue from another perspective, asking what language in the statute prevented the board from streamlining the procedure and instituting on only those claims found to have a reasonable likelihood of success. Id. at 52:17–23; 69:25–70:2. It is likely that a majority of the justices will determine that the statute does not prohibit the PTAB from continuing its practice of partial institution and rendering a final decision on only the instituted claims.

The Wi-Fi One Decision Will Likely Lead to Additional Requests to Expand Appellate Review

On Jan. 8, 2018, the Federal Circuit released its en banc decision in Wi-Fi One. The majority decision, authored by Judge Reyna and joined by nine of his colleagues, overruled the court's previous decision in Achates Reference Publishing Inc. v. Apple Inc. and held that time-bar determinations under 315(b) by the PTAB are reviewable by the Federal Circuit. Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., No. 2015-1944, slip op. at 21 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2018).

The statue provides that "[t]he determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable." 35 U.S.C. § 314(d). The Federal Circuit determined that the "natural reading of the statute limits the reach of § 314(d) to the determination by the Director whether to institute IPR as set forth in § 314." Wi-Fi One, slip op. at 15. The Federal Circuit further stated that Section 315(b) controls the director's authority to institute IPR, which is unrelated to the director's preliminary assessment or the director's discretion not to initiate an IPR. Id. at 17. Ultimately, the court determined that Section 315(b) is not "closely related" to the institution decision addressed in Section 314(a) and, therefore, is not subject to Section 314 d)'s bar on judicial review. Id. at 20.

In light of the decision, you can expect increased scrutiny of the PTAB's determinations with respect to the application of the Section 315(b) time bar, including determinations regarding the proper designation of real parties-in-interest. This increase in scrutiny may encourage PTAB panels to be more amenable to pre-institution discovery requests from the parties on the topics of real parties-in-interest and privity. The Federal Circuit's decision may also permit the court to clear up some disagreement at the PTAB, including disagreement among panels as to when the time bar is triggered. The potential for appellate review of this and other pre-institution determinations may enable the Federal Circuit to provide binding precedent on these issues.

The expanded bases for appeal requests in AIA trials in 2018 will not likely be limited to simply time-bar determinations. Given the Federal Circuit's language regarding the "strong presumption in favor of judicial review" (Id. at 9), the decision in Wi-Fi One may open the doors to many more requests for review of PTAB decisions made during the institution phase. Parties seeking appeal will attempt to argue that the PTAB determination being appealed is not "closely related" to the subject matter of Section 314. Parties may also attempt to appeal PTAB determinations as to whether the petitioner is barred by estoppel under Section 315(e).

Motions to Amend Will Continue to be a Flashpoint

Prior to Oil States, motions to amend typically ranked #1 on the list of PTAB hot topics. My prediction is that after Oil States is decided, motions to amend will regain the top spot as the most widely discussed AIA trial issue.

On Oct. 7, 2017, the Federal Circuit issued an en banc decision in Aqua Products holding that the "the PTO may not place that burden [of persuasion with respect to the patentability of amended claims] on the patentee." Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, No.15-1177, slip op. 66 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 4, 2017). Chief Judge Ruschke of the PTAB then issued guidance on Nov. 21, 2017, stating that the board will not place the burden of persuasion on a patent owner with respect to the patentability of substitute claims but instead "the Board will proceed to determine whether the substitute claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence based on the entirety of the record, including any opposition made by the petitioner." Memorandum titled "Guidance on Motions to Amend in view of Aqua Products," PTAB Chief Judge Ruschke, Nov. 21, 2017. Furthermore, Chief Judge Ruschke stated that the board's standing scheduling order will not change and that, generally speaking, practice and procedure before the board will not change. Id.

On Dec. 22, 2017, however, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Bosch v. Matal stating: "the petitioner bears the burden of proving that the proposed amended claims are unpatentable 'by a preponderance of the evidence.'" Bosch Automotive Svc. Solutions LLC v. Matal, No. 2015-1928, slip op. at 22 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 22, 2017). Interestingly, the Federal Circuit cited 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) for this proposition but did not cite the Aqua Products decision. See id. In Bosch, the petitioner dropped out of the proceeding and the Federal Circuit remanded to the PTAB on the basis that the board must justify any finding of unpatentability when the challenger ceases to participate in the IPR. Id. at 22–23.

Some may scratch their heads when attempting to reconcile the Bosch decision, the Aqua Products decision, and the PTAB's guidance memorandum. In the least, the post-Aqua landscape will provide fruitful ground for arguments by both petitioners and patent owners alike in 2018.

Conclusion

If somehow all of my 2018 predictions for the PTAB come true, it seems that we will end up in a similar place to where we started: (a) AIA trials will continue, (b) partial institution will continue, (c) parties will continue to seek review of issues alleged to be outside the scope of Section 314(d), and (d) motions to amend will continue to be a subject of controversy.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

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
Events from this Firm
11 Dec 2018, Conference, Washington, DC, United States

Finnegan partner Li Feng will present "How to Read & Write Patents and Scientific Publications"at the 72nd annual Scientific Meeting & Technology Showcase, hosted by the Society of Cosmetic Chemists.

12 Dec 2018, Seminar, Washington, DC, United States

Finnegan partner Anthony Tridico will present “U.S. Case Law Update” during the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys’ Patent Case Law program.

13 Dec 2018, Speaking Engagement, Washington, DC, United States

Finnegan is a sponsor of the Silicon Valley Intellectual Property Law Association’s Inventor of the Year presentation and program “Subject Matter Eligibility—Alice, Berkheimer, Iancu—Where are we now?

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
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