After rescinding the June 2022 guidance regarding Fintiv, the PTAB issued updates to how they will consider discretionary denial issues under Section 314(a) on Monday. The updated guidance states:
On February 28, 2025, the USPTO rescinded the June 21 , 2022 memorandum entitled "Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation" ("Interim Procedure"). The Interim Procedure was intended to provide guidance while the USPTO explored potential rulemaking, but the USPTO did not subsequently propose a final rule addressing the Director's and, by delegation, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's ("Board") exercise of discretionary institution in an inter partes review ("IPR") or a post-grant review ("PGR") in view of a parallel litigation. In the absence of rulemaking, the USPTO rescinded the Interim Procedure to restore policy in this area to the guidance in place before the Interim Procedure, including the Board's precedential decisions in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ("Fintiv") and Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) ("Sotera"). This memorandum sets forth additional guidance.
First, the Interim Procedure's recission applies to any case
in which the Board has not issued an institution decision, or where
a request for rehearing or Director Review of an institution
decision was filed and remains pending. The Board will consider
timely requests for additional briefing on the application of
the
Interim Procedure's recission on a case-by-case basis. Absent
extraordinary circumstances, the Board will not revisit a decision
on institution if the time for seeking Director Review or rehearing
has passed.
Second, the Board will apply the Fintiv factors when
there is a parallelm proceeding at the International Trade
Commission ("ITC"). As the Fintiv decision
explains, although an ITC final invalidity determination does not
have preclusive effect, it is difficult as a practical matter to
assert patent claims that the ITC has
determined are invalid. See Fintiv, Paper 11 at 8-9.
Additionally, instituting an IPR or a PGR where the ITC has set a
target date for completing its investigation (i.e., the full
Commission's final determination) to occur earlier than the
Board's deadline to issue a final written decision in a
challenge involving the same patent claims means that multiple
tribunals may be adjudicating validity at the same time, which may
increase duplication and expenses for the parties and the
tribunals. Thus, the Board is more likely to deny institution where
the ITC's projected final determination date is earlier than
the Board's deadline to issue a final written decision, and the
Board is less likely to deny institution under Fintiv
where the ITC projected final determination date is after the
Board's deadline to issue a final written decision.
Third, a timely-filed Sotera stipulation 1 (i.e., a
stipulation from a petitioner that, if an IPR or PGR is instituted,
the petitioner will not pursue in district court (or in the ITC)
any ground raised or that could have been reasonably raised in the
IPR/PGR) is highly relevant, but will not be dispositive by itself.
Instead, the
Board will consider such a stipulation as part of its holistic
analysis under Fintiv.
Fourth, in applying Fintiv, the Board may consider any evidence that the parties make of record that bears on the proximity of the district court's trial date or the ITC's final determination target date, including median time-to-trial statistics for civil actions in the district court in which the parallel litigation resides.
Fifth, as stated in Fintiv, the factors considered in the exercise of discretion are part of a balanced assessment of all the relevant circumstances in the case, including the strength of the merits. However, compelling merits alone is not dispositive in making the assessment.
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.
