We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
1. On July 16 2019, the PTAB issued a Trial Practice Guide
Update ("Guidance"), where the practice of filing
parallel petitions challenging the same patent was given special
attention.
2. As our July Client Alert noted: In
the "rare" circumstances where two petitions are filed,
e.g. when "a large number of claims [are] in litigation or . .
. a dispute about priority date requir[es] arguments under multiple
prior art references," a petitioner "will be
expected" to file a statement or separate 5-page paper
justifying the need for two petitions. Guidance at 26-27. Three or
more petitions are "unlikely" to be appropriate.
Id. at 26. Patent owner may file a 5-page response to
petitioner's justification. Id. at 28.
3. The Guidance cited Comcast Cable v. Rovi Guides,
IPR2019-00224 (PTAB April 3, 2019) (Paper 10) for the form and
content of petitioner's justification. The Guidance
"encouraged" petitioners to use a table to rank and
identify similarities and differences among petitions.
Guidance at 27. The Guidance instructed patent owners to
address whether the identified differences were material or could
be resolved by stipulation, such as "certain claim limitations
are not disputed or that certain references qualify as prior
art." Id. at 28.
4. Petitioner Comcast filed its justification ranking
six petitions (in tabular form) filed against one
Rovi Guides patent. IPR2019-00225, Paper 12. Comcast emphasized
that four petitions relied on § 102(e) references, three
relied on references neither cited to nor considered by the
Examiner, and the parties disputed a critical claim
construction.
5. Patent Owner filed a response characterizing the six
petitions as "abusive," but also stipulated that it would
not swear behind § 102(e) references relied on in the first
and fourth-ranked petitions. IPR2019-00225, Paper 13.
6. PTAB instituted review of petitioner's first-ranked
petition and denied institution of the remaining five petitions.
IPR2019-00225, Paper 14; see also Nalox-1 Pharms v. Opiant
Pharms., IPR2019-00689 (PTAB Sept. 9, 2019 (Paper 11)).
Observations and Practice Tips:
1. In the Comcast case, Vice Chief Judge Fink
emphasized that the instituted petition included seven obviousness
grounds for each independent claim, which justified PTAB's
denial of five petitions under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and served
"the integrity of the patent system." He further noted
petitioner had filed a total of 22 petitions challenging five other
Rovi Guides patents.
2. We recently filed a Ranking and Explanation in IPR2019-01539 to
justify institution of two parallel petitions challenging the same
patent. We argued estoppel under § 315(e)(2) was a significant
justification, quoting a recent District of Delaware decision
applying "reasonably could have raised" estoppel. We
explained it was incumbent on petitioner to present a thorough
analysis of each ground raised, which required two petitions, or
run the risk of being estopped in district court.
3. PTAB's requirement that petitioners justify parallel
petitions challenging the same patent may conflict with SAS
Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), because the
requirement permits PTAB to use its non-reviewable discretionary
denial authority to effect a form of partial institution.
4. Petitioners should consider whether to file two or more
petitions, PTAB Guidance notwithstanding. If the PTAB institutes
only one petition and denies institution of the remainder,
petitioner should not be estopped from raising the denied grounds
in district court. See Shaw Industries Group v. Automated Creel
Sys., 817 F.3d 1293, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The plain
language of the statute prohibits the application of estoppel under
these circumstances.").
5. Patent Owners should consider whether to concede
low-percentage positions, e.g., insufficient proof to antedate
§§ 102(a) or 102(e) references, or cancel claims (as Rovi
Guides did) in response to parallel petitions challenging the same
patent claims.
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.
When you or your company receive a copyright infringement notice, it is important to understand the potential damages you or your company may be exposed to. On the other hand, if you discover ...
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.