IPRs, CBMs, and the PTAB: Where Have We Been and Where Are ... · IPRs, CBMs, and the PTAB: Where...

IPRs,CBMs,andthePTAB:WhereHaveWeBeenandWhere

AreWeGoing?MODERATOR

StevenMaslowski,AkinGumpStraussHauer&Feld,LLP,Philadelphia,PASPEAKERS

Hon.DavidRuschke,U.S.PatentandTrademarkOffice,Alexandria,VAFrankAngileri,BrooksKushmanP.C.,Southfield,MIScoPKamholz,FoleyHoagLLP,Washington,DCMickyMinhas,MicrosoSCorp.,Redmond,VA

BrianZielinski,Pfizer,Inc.,NewYork,NY

UpdateonPTABStaWsWcs(dataasof6/30/16;tobeupdated

priortomeeWng)Hon.DavidRuschke

ChiefJudge,PatentandTrialAppealBoard

PTABCasesattheSupremeCourt

ScoPE.Kamholz,M.D.,Ph.D.PartnerandFormerAdministraWve

PatentJudgeFoleyHoagLLP

PTABattheSupremeCourt

•  Cuozzoandrelatedcases•  Non-PTABpatentcasesinwhichcert.hasbeengranted

•  PTABcaseswithcert.pending•  NotablePTABcert.denials•  Casestowatch

CuozzoandRelatedCases

•  TwoquesWons–  1.ClaimconstrucWon:BRIvs.Phillips

•  Answer:BRI–  2.DecisiontoInsWtuteunreviewable?

•  Answer:Yes,evenaSerfinaldecision,buthavenotconsideredconsWtuWonalityorotherstatutes

•  Click-to-Callv.Oracle:GVRinlightofCuozzo– UnreviewableevenifinsWtuWondecisionisre-confirmedinthefinalwriPendecision?

–  Issueconcernsone-yearbarunder35U.S.C.§315(b)

Non-PTABCert.Grants

•  LifeTechv.Promega– Commoditycomponent:acWveinducementunder271(f)(1)?

•  SCAHygienev.FirstQualityBabyProds– Lachesdefense:35U.S.C.§286orPetrella?

•  Samsungv.Apple– Designpatents:calibraWngdamages

PendingCert.Cases

•  MCMv.HP:consWtuWonalityunderArt.IIIand7thAmendment

•  Cooperv.Lee:same•  TradingTechsv.Lee:interlocutoryreviewabilityofCBMinsWtuWon

•  Merckv.Gnosis:substanWalevidencestandardofreview

•  Shawv.AutomatedCreel:reviewabilityof§315(b)non-denial;meritsofobviousnessdeterminaWon

•  GEAProcessEng’gv.SteubenFoods:earlyterminaWon

PendingCert.#1:MCMv.HP

•  QuesWonspresented– DoesIPRviolateArWcleIIIoftheConsWtuWon?– DoesIPRviolatetheSeventhAmendmentoftheConsWtuWon?

•  HasaPractedmanyamici•  CalendaredforSeptember26,2016conference

MCMv.HP,cont.•  PicksupwherePatlexv.MossinghoffleSoff–  ChallengedexpartereexaminaWonstatueonsameconsWtuWonalitygrounds(alsoFiShAmendmenttaking)

– ArguedthatperMcCormickv.Aultman(1898)patentbecomesprivatepropertyrightupongrantbeyondreachoftheexecuWvebranch

–  FederalCircuitupheldconsWtuWonality•  DisWnguishedMcCormick,whichlackedstatutoryframework•  Describedpatentsasmoreakintopublicrightthanprivateright

•  CerMorarinotsought

MCMv.HP,cont.•  SupremeCourtleSconsWtuWonalityopeninCuozzobut

gavesomehints:–  declinedtoundercut“congressionalobjecWve”of“givingthePatentOfficesignificantpowertorevisitandreviseearlierpatentgrants”(slipop.8)

–  “Morelikeaspecializedagencyproceeding”(id.at15)–  “ParWes…maylackconsWtuWonalstanding”(id.)–  “PatentOfficemayinterveneinalaterjudicialproceeding”(id.)–  “[T]heproceedingoffersasecondlookatanearlieradministraWvegrantofapatent”(id.at16)

–  IPR“helpsprotectthepublic’s‘parmountinterestinseeingthatpatentmonopolies…arekeptwithintheirlegiWmatescope.’”(id.)

PendingCert.#2:Cooperv.Lee•  StemsfromCAFC’saffirmanceofsummaryjudgmentagainstCooperinacivilacWonagainsttheUSPTOcontesWngconsWtuWonalityofIPR.

•  QuesWonpresented:“Whether35U.S.C.§318(b)violatesArWcleIIIoftheUnitedStatesConsWtuWon,totheextentthatitempowersanexecuWveagencytribunaltoassertjudicialpowercancelingprivatepropertyrightsamongprivateparWesembroiledinaprivatefederaldisputeofatypeknowninthecommonlawcourtsof1789,ratherthanmerelyissueanadvisoryopinionasanadjuncttoatrialcourt.”

Cooperv.Lee,cont.

•  CalendaredforSeptember26,2016conference

•  ProcedurallyearlierthanMCMbutrecordlessdeveloped

•  Secondcert.peWWonpendingfromCAFC’saffirmanceofPTABfinaldecision(Cooperv.Square)

PendingCert.#3:TradingTechsv.Lee

•  PatentOwnersoughtmandamusfromCAFCtoorderUSPTOtovacateCBMinsWtuWon– arguedthatpatentwasnoteligibleforCBMreview

•  CAFCdeniedmandamuswithoutprejudicetoraisinginsWtuWonissueonappeal

•  USPTOwaivedrespondentbrief•  CalendaredforSeptember26,2016conference

PendingCert.#4:Merckv.Gnosis*

•  PTABcanceledchallengedclaimsinfinaldecisionforobviousness

•  CAFCaffirmedinsplitdecision,relyingheavilyon“substanWalevidence”standardofreviewforfactualdeterminaWons

•  CAFCdeclinedenbancreview(Zurko),but…•  ConcurringopinionbyJ.O’Malley(withJJ.WallachandStoll):substanWalevidencestandard“seeminglyinconsistent”withthepurposeofAIA.

*SEKwrotePTABdecision

PendingCert.#5:Shawv.AutomatedCreel

•  QuesWonspresented(paraphrase):–  1.IsdecisiontoinsWtutereviewableifbasisisaddressedinfinalwriPendecision?(SimilartoClick-to-Call)

–  2.CantheCAFCdisregarditsownprecedentinreviewingthemeritsofanobviousnessdeterminaWon?

•  CasepresentedinteresWngissues(J.Moore’soralhearingquipaboutthePTAB“blindlythrowingdarts,”J.Reyna’sspecialconcurrenceonthePTAB’s“RedundancyDoctrine”)butnotaddressedinpeWWonforcerMorari

PendingCert.#6:GEAProcessv.Steuben

•  IPRinsWtutedbutlaterterminatedupondeterminaWonthattheidenWficaWonofthereal-parWes-in-interestwerenotcorrect

•  PeWWonerappealedandalsosoughtmandamusfromCAFConthebasisthatPTABlacksauthoritytovacateaninsWtuWondecision

•  CAFCdismissedappealanddeniedmandamus–  “[A]dministraWveagenciespossessinherentauthoritytoreconsidertheirdecisions,subjecttocertainlimitaWons,regardlessofwhethertheypossessexplicitstatutoryauthoritytodoso.”

NotablePTABCert.Denials

•  Versatav.SAP– CBMscope,BRI

•  ReMrementCapitalv.U.S.Bancorp–  Is§101acondiWonofpatentability?

CasestoWatch

•  IBSv.Illumina*–  JudicialreviewofPTAB’srule-baseddecisions(peWWonerreplyexceedingpermissiblescope)

•  Ethiconv.Covidien– DelegaWnginsWtuWondecisiontoPTAB;samepanel

•  PPCBroadbandv.CorningOpMcal– ClaimconstrucWon,secondaryconsideraWons

*SEKwasonPTABpanel

OtherPTABIssues:Redundancy,Appealability

FrankAngileri,BrooksKushmanP.C.

Redundancy•  PeWWonersgenerallyproposemulWplegroundsforchallenge,toavoidestoppel.

•  PTABmaydeclinetoinsWtuteonanygroundas“redundant.”–  InIPR,PTAB“mayauthorizethereviewtoproceed...onallorsomeofthegroundsofunpatentabilityassertedforeachclaim.”37C.F.R.§42.108(a).

– ReasoningforredundancyposiWongenerallynotexplainedindetail.

Redundancy–TwoTypes?•  LibertyMutualIns.Co.v.ProgressiveIns.Co.,No.CBM-2012-0003(PTAB

Oct.25,2012).–  “Horizontal”–“[I]nvolvesapluralityofpriorartreferencesappliednotin

combinaWontocomplementeachotherbutasdisWnctandseparatealternaWves.AllofthemyriadreferencesreliedonprovideessenWallythesameteachingtomeetthesameclaimlimitaWon,andtheassociatedargumentsdonotexplainwhyonereferencemorecloselysaWsfiestheclaimlimitaWonatissueinsomerespectsthananotherreference,andviceversa.BecausethereferencesarenotidenWcal,eachreferencehastobebePerinsomerespectorelsethereferencesarecollecWvelyhorizontallyredundant.”

–  “VerWcal”–“[I]nvolvesapluralityofpriorartappliedbothinparWalcombinaWonandinfullcombinaWon.Intheformercase,fewerreferencesthantheenWrecombinaWonaresufficienttorenderaclaimobvious,andinthelaPercasetheenWrecombinaWonisreliedontorenderthesameclaimobvious.TheremustbeanexplanaWonofwhytherelianceinpartmaybethestrongerasserWonasappliedincertaininstancesandwhytherelianceinwholemayalsobethestrongerasserWoninotherinstances.Withoutabi-direcWonalexplanaWon,theasserWonsareverWcallyredundant.”

Redundancy–AThirdType?•  Denialsbasedonredundancyalsomaybeduetoaneedtocontrol

thePTABdocket,notonsubstanWveevaluaWonofmerits.•  OralArgumentinShawIndus.Group,Inc.v.AutomatedCreelSyst.,

Inc.,817F.3d1293(Fed.Cir.2016):–  JudgeMoore:“IunderstoodtheredundancydecisionbythePTOnot

tobeasubstanWvedecision...Butrather...redundantintermsoftoomanydifferentgroundsofrejecWon,we’regoingtoonlydecidethese,we’renotexpressinganyindicaWonordecisionwithregarding[sic]thevalidityoftheseothers.”

–  PTOSolicitor:“Yourunderstandingiscorrect,yourHonor.WhentheBoardsaysthatthegroundsareredundant,theyweren’ttalkingabout‘cumulaWve’orsomethingofthatnature.Theywerebasicallyjusttryingtosay,‘we’vealreadyfoundthatwecangoforwardonthisparWcularclaimunderonetheory,wedon’thavetogoforwardonthatsameclaimonmulWpletheories.’”

Redundancy–BasisofRejecWon•  Thus,groundsmaybedeniedasredundanteveniftheyinvolvedifferentreferences,withdifferentdisclosures,anddifferenttheoriesofunpatentability.

•  Mayraisedueprocessconcerns,andimplicateAdministraWveProceduresAct.–  SeeShawIndus.(Reyna,J.Concurring):“InsomeofthesedecisionstheBoardappearstofindredundancynotonanysubstanWvebasis,butratheronthebasisthatitneedonlyhearonegroundforeachclaimandthathearingmulWplegroundsmightrequire‘redundant’effortonitspart.”

Redundancy–Appeal

•  DenialofinsWtuWonbasedonredundancy–ofanytype–isnotreviewableonappeal.– BoarddecisiontoinsWtutecannotbeappealed.35U.S.C.§314(d).CuozzoSpeedTechs.,LLCv.Lee,136S.Ct.2131(2016)

– AdenialofinsWtuWonisnotsubjecttomandamus.St.JudeMedicalv.VolcanoCorp.,749F.3d1373(Fed.Cir.2014).

Redundancy–JudgeReyna’sView•  “[R]egardlessofwhethertheBoard’sinsWtuWondecisionscanbeappealed,theBoardcannotcreateablackboxdecisionmakingprocess.ConclusorystatementsareanWtheWcaltotherequirementsoftheAdministraWveProceduresAct(‘APA’),whichthePTOanditsBoardaresubjectto.”

•  “ThePTOhaslostsightofitsobligaWonto‘considertheeffectof’itsimplementaWonoftheIPRprocesson‘theintegritythepatentsystem’asawhole.35U.S.C.§316(b).”

Redundancy–Estoppel•  DenialofinsWtuWonmayhavesignificanteffectonestoppel:–  “ThepeWWonerinaninterpartesreviewofaclaiminapatentunderthischapterthatresultsinafinalwriPendecision...maynotasserteitherinacivilacWon[oranITCacWon]thattheclaimisinvalidonanygroundthatthepeWWonerraisedorreasonablycouldhaveraisedduringthatinterpartesreview.35U.S.C.§315(e).

–  InShawIndus.,thePTOrepresentedthatitwouldnotapplyestoppelbasedongroundsnotinsWtutedasredundant.

–  But,“Whetherestoppelapplies,however,isnotfortheBoardorthePTOtodecide.”(Reyna,J)

Appealability

•  FinalwriPendecisionissubjecttoappellatereview.

•  But,“[t]hedeterminaWonbytheDirectorwhethertoinsWtuteaninterpartesreviewunderthissecWonshallbefinalandnonappealable.”35U.S.C.§314(d).

CuozzoSpeed

•  FirstSupremeCourtcasereviewingAIAtrialproceedings.

•  Point1-USPTO’srulesapplyingtheBRIclaimconstrucWonstandardwerereasonableandwithintherulemakingauthoritydelegatedtotheOfficeintheAIA.(8-0)

•  Point2–InsWtuWondecisionsgenerallynotappealable.(6-2)

CuozzoSpeed•  AlthoughadministraWveproceedingsgenerallyaresubject

tocourtoversight,thatpresumpWonmustbesetasidebecausetheAIAexpresslyprovidesthatthedecisiontoinsWtuteisnotappealable.See35U.S.C.§314(d).

•  TheCourtnotedthatthe“noappeal”ruleisconsistentwiththeAdministraWveProceduresAct,whichdoesnotpermitappellatereviewof“preliminary”agencyrulings.

•  But,theCourtnotedthatdespite§314(d),aninsWtuWondecisioncouldbeappealedtolodgeaconsWtuWonalchallengeandotherextraordinarysituaWons,suchastheUSPTOacWngoutsideitsstatutorylimits.

PossibleGroundsforAppealingInsWtuWonDecision

•  “Minerun”challengesnotappealable.ProhibiWononlyappliestoaPacksinvolving“quesWonsthatarecloselyWedtotheapplicaWonandinterpretaWonofstatutes”relatedtotheinsWtuWondecision.

•  Leaving:–  ConsWtuWonalquesWons(e.g.,dueprocess).–  Adecisiongoingbeyondthe“statutory”limitsoftheAIA(e.g.,reviewbasedongroundnotpermiPedbystatute).

–  IssuesrelaWngto“other,lesscloselyrelatedstatutes,”orbasedonissuesextendingbeyondthereachof§314.

–  JurisdicWonalissues(Alito).(e.g.,applicaWonof1-yearliWgaWonbar,applicaWonofCBMcriteria).

–  Other“Shenanigans.”

ContrasWngIPR/CBM/PGRLiWgaWonStrategy

•  OneCommonCharacterisWc–OneinsWtuted,likelihoodofcancellingclaimsishigh.– PatentownershouldconsideraggressivelyopposingpeWWon.

•  AnotherCommonCharacterisWc-Ifunsuccessful,peWWonerwillfacepossibilityofestoppel.– Extentofestoppelnotyetapparent.

ContrasWngIPR/CBM/PGRLiWgaWonStrategy

•  IPR–– Limitedto102/103challengesbasedonpatentsandprintedpublicaWons.

– MayresultinadverseclaimconstrucWon,whichmaybepersuasivetodistrictcourtjudge.

ContrasWngIPR/CBM/PGRLiWgaWonStrategy

•  CBM–– Limitedto“businessmethod”invenWonsthatlacktechnologicalinvenWons,wherepatenthasbeenassertedagainstpeWWoner.

– Availabletochallengeallqualifyingpatentson§101grounds.

ContrasWngIPR/CBM/PGRLiWgaWonStrategy

•  PGR–– OnlyavailableofAIApatents(filedaSer3/16/2013)

– Maychallengeonanyground(exceptfailuretodisclosebestmode).

– Butbreadthofpossiblegroundsmayresultinbroaderestoppeleffect.

OtherPTABIssues:MoWonstoAmend

MoWonstoAmend•  PatentownerhasburdenofdemonstraWngthatproposed

subsWtuteclaimsarepatentableovertheknownpriorart.IdleFreeSys.,Inc.v.Bergstrom,Inc.,IPR2012–00027,Paper26,2013WL5947697(PTABJune11,2013).

•  ForpurposesofmoWonstoamendunder37C.F.R.§42.121“knownpriorart”refersto:–  (a)anymaterialartintheprosecuWonhistoryofthepatent;–  (b)anymaterialartofrecordinthecurrentproceeding,includingart

assertedingroundsonwhichthePTABdidnotinsWtutereview;and–  (c)anymaterialartofrecordinanyotherproceedingbeforethe

USPTOinvolvingthepatent.SeeMasterimage3D,Inc.v.RealdInc.,No.IPR2015-00040,Paper42,2015WL4383224(PTABJul.15,2015)

PatentTrialandAppealBoardMoWontoAmendStudy(4/30/2016)

•  StudyofmoWonstoamendtodetermine:–  (1)thenumberofmoWonstoamendthathavebeenfiledinAIAtrials,bothasacumulaWvetotalandbyfiscalyear;

–  (2)subsequentdevelopmentsofeachmoWontoamend;

–  (3)thenumberofmoWonstoamendrequesWngtosubsWtuteclaimsthataregranted,granted-in-partanddenied-in-part,anddenied;and

–  (4)thereasonstheBoardhasprovidedfordenyingentryofsubsWtuteclaims.

CaseLawDevelopments•  Prolitecv.Scentair,2015-1020(Fed.Cir.Dec.4,2015)

–  AffirmingPTABdenialofmoWontoamend“onameritsassessmentoftheenWrerecorddevelopedonthemoWon,notjustontheiniWalmoWonitself,”including“thatthepatentee'sburdenonamoWontoamendincludestheburdentoshowpatentabilityoverpriorartfromthepatent'soriginalprosecu8onhistory.”

–  PriorartinoriginalprosecuWonhistoryis“priorartofrecord”asstatedintheIdleFreeandMarterImagedecisionsofthePTAB.

–  DissentbyJudgeNewman:refusaltoallowanamendmentwas“contrarytoboththepurposeandthetextoftheAmericaInventsAct....[E]ntryofacompliantamendmentis[a]statutoryright,andpatentabilityoftheamendedclaimisproperlydeterminedbythePTABduringtheIPRtrial,notforthefirstWmeattheFederalCircuit.”

CaseLawDevelopments•  InReAquaProducts,2015-1177(Fed.Cir.May25,2016)–  Inashortopinion,theFederalCircuithasreaffirmedtheUSPTO’sWghtlyrestricWveapproachtoamendmentpracWceinInterPartesReview(IPR)proceedings.Undertherules,apatenteehasoneopportunitytoproposeamendmentsorsubsWtuteclaims.However,themoWontoamendwillonlybegrantedifthepatenteealsodemonstratesinthemoWonthattheproposedamendmentswouldmaketheclaimspatentableovertheknownpriorart.SeeIdleFreeSys.,Inc.v.Bergstrom,Inc.,IPR2012–00027,2013WL5947697(PTABJune11,2013).

CaseLawDevelopments•  InReAquaProducts–enbancorder(Fed.Cir.Aug.12,2016)

(a)  InanIPR,whenthepatentownermovestoamendclaimsunderPatentActsecWon316(d),maytheUSPTOrequirethepatentownertobeartheburdenofpersuasion,oraburdenofproducWon,regardingpatentabilityoftheamendedclaims?

(b) WhenthepeWWonerinanIPRdoesnotchallengethepatentabilityofproposedamendedclaimsortheBoardfindsthechallengeinadequate,maytheBoardraiseapatentabilitychallengeonitsown,andifso,wherewouldtheburdenslie?