PTAB: Success by the Numbers

Patexia Inc.
Patexia Inc.Patexia Inc.
PTAB: SUCCESS
BY THE NUMBERS
John T. Callahan - Shareholder
Andrew P. Ritter - Associate
Sughrue Mion, PLLC
December 2015
© SUGHRUE MION
Focus of Webinar
• Provide a review of key aspects of successful practice
before the PTAB – what do the statistics show and what
does the PTAB require from a petitioner and patent owner
2© SUGHRUE MION
Outline of Webinar
• IPR Statistics – Slides 4-7
• Points to Consider from Petitioner's Perspective – Slide 8
• Preparing a Petition – Slides 9 & 10
• Real Party in Interest – Slide 11
• Expert Testimony and Declarations – Slides 12 & 13
• Notification of IPR Petition(s) and/or Other Proceedings – Slide 14
• Points to Consider from Patent Owner's Perspective –
Slide 15
• Patent Owner's Preliminary Response – Slide 16
• Patent Owner's Amendment – Slides 17-20
• Settlement – Slide 21
• General Overview of IPR Proceedings – Slide 22
3© SUGHRUE MION
IPR Statistics
4© SUGHRUE MION
Statistics taken from the USPTO
as of December 8, 2015 -
http://www.uspto.gov/patents-
application-process/appealing-
patent-decisions/statistics/aia-
trial-statistics
IPR Statistics
5© SUGHRUE MION
Statistics taken from the USPTO
as of December 8, 2015 -
http://www.uspto.gov/patents-
application-process/appealing-
patent-decisions/statistics/aia-
trial-statistics
IPR Statistics
6© SUGHRUE MION
Statistics taken
from the USPTO
as of December 8,
2015 -
http://www.uspto.g
ov/patents-
application-
process/appealing
-patent-
decisions/statistic
s/aia-trial-statistics
IPR Statistics
7© SUGHRUE MION
Statistics taken
from the Court of
Appeals for the
Federal Circuit as
of December 8,
2015 -
http://www.cafc.usc
ourts.gov/the-
court/statistics
Petitioner's Perspective
© SUGHRUE MION 8
Points to Consider When Preparing a Petition
• Petition is limited to 60 pages (37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(i))
• Page limitation does not include appendices
• When filing a petition, do not overwhelm the PTAB with
too many grounds of unpatentability and prior art
references
• See e.g., Zetec, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., LLC, IPR2014-
00384 (Paper No. 10) – Numerous grounds of unpatentability had
"underdeveloped arguments" and "would place a significant burden
on the Board" to evaluate the petition (petition denied)
© SUGHRUE MION 9
Points to Consider When Preparing a Petition
(cont.)
• Present strongest arguments first and disregard weak
arguments if they will confuse or weaken strong
arguments
• See e.g., Garmin International, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies
LLC, IPR2012-00001 (Paper No. 59) – petition limited to two
separate combinations of art (petition granted)
• Do not include arguments in claim charts
• Claim charts should be limited to an element-by-element
comparison based only on the disclosure of the prior art. VMWare,
Inc. v. Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute,
IPR2014-00901 (Paper No. 7) – claim charts should not include
explanations, characterizations, conclusions, or inferences drawn
from references
© SUGHRUE MION 10
Real Party in Interest
• The Petition must identify "all real parties in interest."
35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2).
• Definition of a real party in interest
• "Existence of a financially controlling interest in the petitioner…; the
nonparty’s relationship with the petitioner; the nonparty’s relationship to
the petition itself, including the nature and/or degree of involvement in
the filing; and the nature of the entity filing the petition.” Zoll Lifecor
Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Amer. Corp. & Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V.,
IPR2013-00606 (Paper No. 13) (denied motion to institute)
• Failure to identify real parties in interest can result in the institution
of the IPR being denied or termination of the IPR proceeding. See,
Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards Inc., IPR2013-
00453 (Paper No. 88) – IPR proceeding terminated after it was
determined that petitioner failed to properly identify all real parties
in interest
© SUGHRUE MION 11
Expert Testimony and Declarations
• Expert testimony can be crucial in providing PTAB evidence on
which to rely when deciding a petition
• Expert testimony is not required and PTAB has deference in
interpreting patentability of claims. See, Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
2014-1575, -1576 (Fed. Cir. November 5, 2015)
• In granting institution of IPR, PTAB relied on expert declaration as
evidence that prior art inherently disclosed a prior art limitation. See
e.g., Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Mobile Scanning Technologies, LLC,
IPR2013-00093 (Paper 61) – expert declaration provided as evidence
that certain components are necessary for a scanner to operate and
are therefore inherent in the prior art's disclosure
• Avoid conclusory statements without underlying facts
• Expert declaration should provide corroborating evidence to support
expert's opinion, otherwise evidence given little weight. See e.g.,
General Electric v. Tas Energy, IPR2014-00163 (Paper 11) –
conclusory statements in expert declaration unsupported by evidence
were unpersuasive
© SUGHRUE MION 12
Expert Testimony and Declarations (cont.)
• Establish a clear rationale in the declaration to modify a
reference
• Failure to establish a clear rationale for modifying a reference to meet
a claim limitation may result in the PTAB denying institution of IPR.
See e.g., Wright Medical Technology, Inc. v. Orthophoenix, LLC,
IPR2014-00912 (Paper 9) – expert declaration failed to provide
enough evidence for why it would have been obvious to use a cutting
tool disclosed in a reference to cut cancellous bone
• Provide sufficient discussion of expert's arguments from the
declaration in the petition
• Arguments cannot be incorporated by reference from one document to
another (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3))
• PTAB may not consider arguments from a declaration if not sufficiently
described in the petition. See e.g., Tempur Sealy International Inc. v.
Select Comfort Corporation, IPR2014-01419 (Paper 1) – failure to
include arguments from expert declaration in the petition not cured by
referencing the relevant portions of the expert declarations in the
petition (petition denied)
© SUGHRUE MION 13
Notification of IPR Petition(s) and/or
Judicial Proceedings
• Petitioner is required to disclose all litigation and USPTO
proceedings involving the patent that is the subject of the
IPR
• Failure to comply with this requirement can result in the
petition for the IPR being denied
• See, 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(4); 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2); Apple
Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., IPR 2015-00356
(Paper No. 9)
© SUGHRUE MION 14
Patent Owner's Perspective
© SUGHRUE MION 15
Patent Owner's Preliminary Response
• Patent Owner has three months to file an optional Patent
Owner's Preliminary Response (37 C.F.R. § 41.107(b))
• Patent Owner's Preliminary Response gives patent
owners on opportunity to argue a particular claim
construction prior to institution of the IPR
• Patent Owner's Preliminary Response can help point out
deficiencies in the petition
© SUGHRUE MION 16
Patent Owner's Amendment
• Amendment allowed by statute (37 U.S.C. § 316(d)), but
PTAB often denies motions to amend the claims
• Burden is on Patent Owner to establish, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the proposed substitute claims are patentable over
the known prior art. See, Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc.,
IPR2012-00027 (Paper 26) – PTAB granted motion to amend some
of the claims
© SUGHRUE MION 17
Patent Owner's Amendment (cont.)
• Requirements to Successfully Amend
• Timing and PTAB Conference Requirement
• Motion to amend must be filed no later than filing of patent owner's
response, unless due date is provided in PTAB order
(37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a))
• Must confer with the PTAB before filing motion to amend
(37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a))
• Failure to confer with PTAB can cause motion to be denied. See e.g., Idle
Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027 (Paper 26)
• A claim listing showing clearly the changes to the claims
(37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b))
• One substitute claim per original patent claim, on a claim-by-claim
basis (37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3))
• A discussion of where support for the changes are found in the
patent
© SUGHRUE MION 18
Patent Owner's Amendment (cont.)
• Successful Claim Amendments Should Demonstrate the Following
• Claim scope is not broadened
• Proposed amendment cannot enlarge the scope of the claims or introduce
new subject matter (37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2))
• A substitute claim having all the limitations of the original claim and added additional
limitations did not enlarge the claim scope. See, Riverbed Tech., Inc. v. Silver Peak
Sys., Inc., IPR2013-00402 (Paper No. 35)
• Written description support for claim(s)
• Must show (1) support in original disclosure of the patent; and (2) support in
an earlier-filed disclosure for which benefit of the filing date of the filing date is
sought (37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b))
• Merely indicating where each claim limitation is individually described may not
be sufficient. Patent Owner must explain why one skilled in the art would
have recognized that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter as a
whole. Nichia Corp. v. Emcore Corp., IPR2012-00005 (Paper No. 27)
© SUGHRUE MION 19
Patent Owner's Amendment (cont.)
• Successful Claim Amendments Should Demonstrate the Following
• Patentable distinction of the proposed substitute claim over the prior
art (37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c))
• Identify the specific features which are added to each substitute claim and
identify the technical facts and reasoning about those feature(s) to persuade
PTAB that the proposed substitute claim is patentable over the prior art.
Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027 (Paper No. 26) -
PTAB granted motion to amend some of the claims
• The PTAB has found that a table showing the new claims and proposed
construction helpful. See, Riverbed Tech., Inc. v. Silver Peak Sys., Inc.
IPR2013-00402 (Paper No. 35) – motion to amend claims granted
• Distinguish over all prior art that is known to Patent Owner
• Must show patentability over prior art of record and any prior art not of
record but known to the Patent Owner. See, Masterimage 3D Inc. v. RealD
Inc., IPR2015-00040 (Paper 42)
• No prior art search necessary. However, a prior art search and expert
declaration testifying that the prior art found in the search is the closest prior
art may aid in demonstrating patentability (PTAB AIA Trial Roundtable, Part I
(April 15, 2014))
© SUGHRUE MION 20
Settlement
• Settlement is a key aspect of IPRs
• Parties are allowed to settle a case, but the PTAB has authority to
prevent a settlement if the Office has decided the merits of the
proceeding before the formal termination of the proceedings has
been issued (35 § U.S.C. 317)
• PTAB decisions have held that a final written decision need not be
issued for the Office to have "decided on the merits of the
proceeding"
• See e.g., Blackberry Corp., et al. v. Mobilemedia Ideas, LLC, IPR2013-
00016 (Paper No. 31) – joint motion to terminate the proceeding denied
because the proceeding had reached an advanced stage, including
patent owner's response, petitioner's reply, and an oral hearing had
been held
© SUGHRUE MION 21
General Overview of IPR Proceedings
22© SUGHRUE MION
Taken from the Office Patent Trial Patent Guide, 77 FR 48756
as of December 8, 2015
Questions?
Thank you.
© SUGHRUE MION 23
Disclaimer
• These materials have been prepared solely for
educational and entertainment purposes. These materials
reflect only the personal views of the speaker and are not
individualized legal advice. It is understood that each
case is fact-specific, and that the appropriate solution in
any case will vary. Therefore, these materials may or may
not be relevant to any particular situation. Thus, Sughrue
Mion, PLLC and the speaker cannot be bound as
representatives of their various present and future clients
to the comments expressed in these materials.
© SUGHRUE MION 24
1 of 24

Recommended

"Your Guide to the America Invents Act (AIA)," The Ohio State Bar Association by
"Your Guide to the America Invents Act (AIA)," The Ohio State Bar Association"Your Guide to the America Invents Act (AIA)," The Ohio State Bar Association
"Your Guide to the America Invents Act (AIA)," The Ohio State Bar AssociationDinsmore & Shohl LLP
736 views20 slides
Session V. Estoppel and Privity in US PTO Post-Grant Proceedings by
Session V. Estoppel and Privity in US PTO Post-Grant ProceedingsSession V. Estoppel and Privity in US PTO Post-Grant Proceedings
Session V. Estoppel and Privity in US PTO Post-Grant ProceedingsWilmerHale
1.4K views15 slides
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Post-Grant Patent Proceedings: Are th... by
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Post-Grant Patent Proceedings: Are th...Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Post-Grant Patent Proceedings: Are th...
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Post-Grant Patent Proceedings: Are th...WilmerHale
566 views28 slides
Patent Law Review - IP Year in Review CLE v2 by
Patent Law Review - IP Year in Review CLE v2Patent Law Review - IP Year in Review CLE v2
Patent Law Review - IP Year in Review CLE v2Bryan Beel
523 views70 slides
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Strategies for Worldwide Patent Litig... by
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Strategies for Worldwide Patent Litig...Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Strategies for Worldwide Patent Litig...
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Strategies for Worldwide Patent Litig...WilmerHale
897 views31 slides
The American Invents Act (AIA) by
The American Invents Act (AIA)The American Invents Act (AIA)
The American Invents Act (AIA)Patterson Thuente IP
35 views99 slides

More Related Content

What's hot

How to Get the Patent Protection VCs Crave and Cut Patent-Related Costs by 90%! by
How to Get the Patent Protection VCs Crave and Cut Patent-Related Costs by 90%!How to Get the Patent Protection VCs Crave and Cut Patent-Related Costs by 90%!
How to Get the Patent Protection VCs Crave and Cut Patent-Related Costs by 90%!ideatoipo
114 views17 slides
Basics of Patent Prosecution Process by
Basics of Patent Prosecution ProcessBasics of Patent Prosecution Process
Basics of Patent Prosecution Processsaanavi
6.9K views29 slides
How to Get the Patent Protection VCs Crave and Cut Patent-Related Costs by 90%! by
How to Get the Patent Protection VCs Crave and Cut Patent-Related Costs by 90%!How to Get the Patent Protection VCs Crave and Cut Patent-Related Costs by 90%!
How to Get the Patent Protection VCs Crave and Cut Patent-Related Costs by 90%!ideatoipo
110 views17 slides
2012 supreme court and federal circuit update by
2012 supreme court and federal circuit update2012 supreme court and federal circuit update
2012 supreme court and federal circuit updateDinsmore & Shohl LLP
378 views22 slides
Patent Law Update for Medical Device Companies 2018 by
Patent Law Update for Medical Device Companies 2018Patent Law Update for Medical Device Companies 2018
Patent Law Update for Medical Device Companies 2018Knobbe Martens - Intellectual Property Law
466 views36 slides
Patentable Subject Matter in the United States by
Patentable Subject Matter in the United StatesPatentable Subject Matter in the United States
Patentable Subject Matter in the United StatesKnobbe Martens - Intellectual Property Law
1.8K views19 slides

What's hot(20)

How to Get the Patent Protection VCs Crave and Cut Patent-Related Costs by 90%! by ideatoipo
How to Get the Patent Protection VCs Crave and Cut Patent-Related Costs by 90%!How to Get the Patent Protection VCs Crave and Cut Patent-Related Costs by 90%!
How to Get the Patent Protection VCs Crave and Cut Patent-Related Costs by 90%!
ideatoipo114 views
Basics of Patent Prosecution Process by saanavi
Basics of Patent Prosecution ProcessBasics of Patent Prosecution Process
Basics of Patent Prosecution Process
saanavi6.9K views
How to Get the Patent Protection VCs Crave and Cut Patent-Related Costs by 90%! by ideatoipo
How to Get the Patent Protection VCs Crave and Cut Patent-Related Costs by 90%!How to Get the Patent Protection VCs Crave and Cut Patent-Related Costs by 90%!
How to Get the Patent Protection VCs Crave and Cut Patent-Related Costs by 90%!
ideatoipo110 views
Overview on Information Disclosure Statement Practice by Justin Cassell by Workman Nydegger
Overview on Information Disclosure Statement Practice by Justin CassellOverview on Information Disclosure Statement Practice by Justin Cassell
Overview on Information Disclosure Statement Practice by Justin Cassell
Workman Nydegger3.6K views
Patents on Software and Business Methods: Have the Rules Changed? by Karl Larson
Patents on Software and Business Methods: Have the Rules Changed?Patents on Software and Business Methods: Have the Rules Changed?
Patents on Software and Business Methods: Have the Rules Changed?
Karl Larson521 views
Pitfalls to be Aware of When Working with Inventions Funded Through Governmen... by Workman Nydegger
Pitfalls to be Aware of When Working with Inventions Funded Through Governmen...Pitfalls to be Aware of When Working with Inventions Funded Through Governmen...
Pitfalls to be Aware of When Working with Inventions Funded Through Governmen...
Workman Nydegger757 views
Navigating the Patent Prosecution Highway by Workman Nydegger
Navigating the Patent Prosecution HighwayNavigating the Patent Prosecution Highway
Navigating the Patent Prosecution Highway
Workman Nydegger1.1K views
REEXAMINATION - Dave Jones - 4-28-2007 by David A. Jones
REEXAMINATION - Dave Jones - 4-28-2007REEXAMINATION - Dave Jones - 4-28-2007
REEXAMINATION - Dave Jones - 4-28-2007
David A. Jones227 views
Japan Position on Unity of Invention and Examination Practice by khirayama
Japan Position on Unity of Invention and Examination PracticeJapan Position on Unity of Invention and Examination Practice
Japan Position on Unity of Invention and Examination Practice
khirayama871 views

Similar to PTAB: Success by the Numbers

IPR Presentation by
IPR PresentationIPR Presentation
IPR PresentationMarcus Simon
388 views28 slides
Inter Partes Review - Learning From the Denied Petitions by
Inter Partes Review - Learning From the Denied PetitionsInter Partes Review - Learning From the Denied Petitions
Inter Partes Review - Learning From the Denied PetitionsKlemchuk LLP
638 views14 slides
Five major differences between IPRs and invalidation proceedings by
Five major differences between IPRs and invalidation proceedingsFive major differences between IPRs and invalidation proceedings
Five major differences between IPRs and invalidation proceedingsAlexandraPuYang
27 views6 slides
Knobbe Martens Webinar Series: Strategic Considerations Under Section 103 – S... by
Knobbe Martens Webinar Series: Strategic Considerations Under Section 103 – S...Knobbe Martens Webinar Series: Strategic Considerations Under Section 103 – S...
Knobbe Martens Webinar Series: Strategic Considerations Under Section 103 – S...Knobbe Martens - Intellectual Property Law
215 views19 slides
Things to Consider Before You File (Series: IP 301 Post-Grant Review Trials 2... by
Things to Consider Before You File (Series: IP 301 Post-Grant Review Trials 2...Things to Consider Before You File (Series: IP 301 Post-Grant Review Trials 2...
Things to Consider Before You File (Series: IP 301 Post-Grant Review Trials 2...Financial Poise
46 views33 slides

Similar to PTAB: Success by the Numbers(20)

Inter Partes Review - Learning From the Denied Petitions by Klemchuk LLP
Inter Partes Review - Learning From the Denied PetitionsInter Partes Review - Learning From the Denied Petitions
Inter Partes Review - Learning From the Denied Petitions
Klemchuk LLP638 views
Five major differences between IPRs and invalidation proceedings by AlexandraPuYang
Five major differences between IPRs and invalidation proceedingsFive major differences between IPRs and invalidation proceedings
Five major differences between IPRs and invalidation proceedings
AlexandraPuYang27 views
Things to Consider Before You File (Series: IP 301 Post-Grant Review Trials 2... by Financial Poise
Things to Consider Before You File (Series: IP 301 Post-Grant Review Trials 2...Things to Consider Before You File (Series: IP 301 Post-Grant Review Trials 2...
Things to Consider Before You File (Series: IP 301 Post-Grant Review Trials 2...
Financial Poise46 views
IP-301: Post-Grant Review Trials 2020 - Interplay With District Court Litigation by Financial Poise
IP-301: Post-Grant Review Trials 2020 - Interplay With District Court LitigationIP-301: Post-Grant Review Trials 2020 - Interplay With District Court Litigation
IP-301: Post-Grant Review Trials 2020 - Interplay With District Court Litigation
Financial Poise28 views
IP-301 POST-GRANT REVIEW TRIALS 2022 - PGRT Basics by Financial Poise
IP-301 POST-GRANT REVIEW TRIALS 2022 - PGRT Basics  IP-301 POST-GRANT REVIEW TRIALS 2022 - PGRT Basics
IP-301 POST-GRANT REVIEW TRIALS 2022 - PGRT Basics
Financial Poise6 views
MBHB-Webinar-PTAB-Williams-Schafer-FINAL-02.25.15 by Andrew Williams
MBHB-Webinar-PTAB-Williams-Schafer-FINAL-02.25.15MBHB-Webinar-PTAB-Williams-Schafer-FINAL-02.25.15
MBHB-Webinar-PTAB-Williams-Schafer-FINAL-02.25.15
Andrew Williams545 views
Patent prosecution, process and pitfalls by Benjamin Kuo (Wed, August 22, 2018) by L15A
Patent prosecution, process and pitfalls by Benjamin Kuo (Wed, August 22, 2018)Patent prosecution, process and pitfalls by Benjamin Kuo (Wed, August 22, 2018)
Patent prosecution, process and pitfalls by Benjamin Kuo (Wed, August 22, 2018)
L15A 214 views
Getting The Patent by Alex Sousa
Getting The PatentGetting The Patent
Getting The Patent
Alex Sousa585 views
IP-301 POST-GRANT REVIEW TRIALS 2022 - Things to Consider Before You File by Financial Poise
IP-301 POST-GRANT REVIEW TRIALS 2022 - Things to Consider Before You FileIP-301 POST-GRANT REVIEW TRIALS 2022 - Things to Consider Before You File
IP-301 POST-GRANT REVIEW TRIALS 2022 - Things to Consider Before You File
Financial Poise11 views

More from Patexia Inc.

Patent Prosecution Intelligence Webinar (2019) by
Patent Prosecution Intelligence Webinar (2019)Patent Prosecution Intelligence Webinar (2019)
Patent Prosecution Intelligence Webinar (2019)Patexia Inc.
517 views19 slides
IPR Intelligence Webinar adam notes for 2018 by
IPR Intelligence Webinar   adam notes for 2018IPR Intelligence Webinar   adam notes for 2018
IPR Intelligence Webinar adam notes for 2018Patexia Inc.
528 views18 slides
Posturing ip rs for settlement (2016-03-24) by
Posturing ip rs for  settlement (2016-03-24)Posturing ip rs for  settlement (2016-03-24)
Posturing ip rs for settlement (2016-03-24)Patexia Inc.
788 views20 slides
Getting past alice schecter patexia (2016-02-25) by
Getting past alice   schecter patexia (2016-02-25)Getting past alice   schecter patexia (2016-02-25)
Getting past alice schecter patexia (2016-02-25)Patexia Inc.
1.4K views44 slides
Pros and Cons: PTAB vs. District Courts by
Pros and Cons: PTAB vs. District CourtsPros and Cons: PTAB vs. District Courts
Pros and Cons: PTAB vs. District CourtsPatexia Inc.
1.7K views35 slides
Lessons From Practicing at the PTAB by
Lessons From Practicing at the PTABLessons From Practicing at the PTAB
Lessons From Practicing at the PTABPatexia Inc.
843 views26 slides

More from Patexia Inc.(15)

Patent Prosecution Intelligence Webinar (2019) by Patexia Inc.
Patent Prosecution Intelligence Webinar (2019)Patent Prosecution Intelligence Webinar (2019)
Patent Prosecution Intelligence Webinar (2019)
Patexia Inc.517 views
IPR Intelligence Webinar adam notes for 2018 by Patexia Inc.
IPR Intelligence Webinar   adam notes for 2018IPR Intelligence Webinar   adam notes for 2018
IPR Intelligence Webinar adam notes for 2018
Patexia Inc.528 views
Posturing ip rs for settlement (2016-03-24) by Patexia Inc.
Posturing ip rs for  settlement (2016-03-24)Posturing ip rs for  settlement (2016-03-24)
Posturing ip rs for settlement (2016-03-24)
Patexia Inc.788 views
Getting past alice schecter patexia (2016-02-25) by Patexia Inc.
Getting past alice   schecter patexia (2016-02-25)Getting past alice   schecter patexia (2016-02-25)
Getting past alice schecter patexia (2016-02-25)
Patexia Inc.1.4K views
Pros and Cons: PTAB vs. District Courts by Patexia Inc.
Pros and Cons: PTAB vs. District CourtsPros and Cons: PTAB vs. District Courts
Pros and Cons: PTAB vs. District Courts
Patexia Inc.1.7K views
Lessons From Practicing at the PTAB by Patexia Inc.
Lessons From Practicing at the PTABLessons From Practicing at the PTAB
Lessons From Practicing at the PTAB
Patexia Inc.843 views
Negotiating and Closing Patent Purchase Transactions in the post-Alice/PTAB R... by Patexia Inc.
Negotiating and Closing Patent Purchase Transactions in the post-Alice/PTAB R...Negotiating and Closing Patent Purchase Transactions in the post-Alice/PTAB R...
Negotiating and Closing Patent Purchase Transactions in the post-Alice/PTAB R...
Patexia Inc.1.2K views
Overview of IP Landscape & Opportunities in Hong Kong by Patexia Inc.
Overview of IP Landscape & Opportunities in Hong KongOverview of IP Landscape & Opportunities in Hong Kong
Overview of IP Landscape & Opportunities in Hong Kong
Patexia Inc.755 views
The ins + outs of crowdsourcing presentation by Patexia Inc.
The ins + outs of crowdsourcing presentationThe ins + outs of crowdsourcing presentation
The ins + outs of crowdsourcing presentation
Patexia Inc.894 views
Defensive publication advanced strategies by Patexia Inc.
Defensive publication advanced strategiesDefensive publication advanced strategies
Defensive publication advanced strategies
Patexia Inc.1.8K views
Patent Strategies for Startups by Lang McHardy by Patexia Inc.
Patent Strategies for Startups by Lang McHardyPatent Strategies for Startups by Lang McHardy
Patent Strategies for Startups by Lang McHardy
Patexia Inc.2.2K views
Patexia patent enforcement in china (July 11, 2013) by Patexia Inc.
Patexia patent enforcement in china (July 11, 2013)Patexia patent enforcement in china (July 11, 2013)
Patexia patent enforcement in china (July 11, 2013)
Patexia Inc.937 views
Patent Monetization Strategies - Patexia IP Matters Webinar by Patexia Inc.
Patent Monetization Strategies - Patexia IP Matters WebinarPatent Monetization Strategies - Patexia IP Matters Webinar
Patent Monetization Strategies - Patexia IP Matters Webinar
Patexia Inc.1.5K views
Defensive Publication - Patexia IP Matters Webinar by Patexia Inc.
Defensive Publication - Patexia IP Matters WebinarDefensive Publication - Patexia IP Matters Webinar
Defensive Publication - Patexia IP Matters Webinar
Patexia Inc.1.4K views
Patent and Prior Art 101 - Patexia Web Series by Patexia Inc.
Patent and Prior Art 101 - Patexia Web SeriesPatent and Prior Art 101 - Patexia Web Series
Patent and Prior Art 101 - Patexia Web Series
Patexia Inc.2.1K views

Recently uploaded

CORPORATE COMMUNICATION.pdf by
CORPORATE COMMUNICATION.pdfCORPORATE COMMUNICATION.pdf
CORPORATE COMMUNICATION.pdfAKarthikeyan8
8 views71 slides
terms_2.pdf by
terms_2.pdfterms_2.pdf
terms_2.pdfJAWADIQBAL40
51 views8 slides
Building Careers at Specialty TRE 2023 by
Building Careers at Specialty TRE 2023Building Careers at Specialty TRE 2023
Building Careers at Specialty TRE 2023Jennifer Sanborn
40 views22 slides
Tanishq by
Tanishq Tanishq
Tanishq supiriyakithuva
12 views7 slides
Forex secret by
Forex secret Forex secret
Forex secret konghatatih
15 views6 slides
Navigating EUDR Compliance within the Coffee Industry by
Navigating EUDR Compliance within the Coffee IndustryNavigating EUDR Compliance within the Coffee Industry
Navigating EUDR Compliance within the Coffee IndustryPeter Horsten
32 views33 slides

Recently uploaded(20)

Navigating EUDR Compliance within the Coffee Industry by Peter Horsten
Navigating EUDR Compliance within the Coffee IndustryNavigating EUDR Compliance within the Coffee Industry
Navigating EUDR Compliance within the Coffee Industry
Peter Horsten32 views
Presentation on proposed acquisition of leading European asset manager Aermon... by KeppelCorporation
Presentation on proposed acquisition of leading European asset manager Aermon...Presentation on proposed acquisition of leading European asset manager Aermon...
Presentation on proposed acquisition of leading European asset manager Aermon...
KeppelCorporation122 views
AIR FRESHENER SUPPLIERS IN MUSCAT OMAN by Hygienelinks2
AIR FRESHENER SUPPLIERS IN MUSCAT OMANAIR FRESHENER SUPPLIERS IN MUSCAT OMAN
AIR FRESHENER SUPPLIERS IN MUSCAT OMAN
Hygienelinks28 views
Why are KPIs(key performance indicators) important? by Epixel MLM Software
Why are KPIs(key performance indicators) important? Why are KPIs(key performance indicators) important?
Why are KPIs(key performance indicators) important?
Assignment 4: Reporting to Management.pptx by BethanyAline
Assignment 4: Reporting to Management.pptxAssignment 4: Reporting to Management.pptx
Assignment 4: Reporting to Management.pptx
BethanyAline17 views
Coomes Consulting Business Profile by Chris Coomes
Coomes Consulting Business ProfileCoomes Consulting Business Profile
Coomes Consulting Business Profile
Chris Coomes44 views
Bloomerang Thank Yous Dec 2023.pdf by Bloomerang
Bloomerang Thank Yous Dec 2023.pdfBloomerang Thank Yous Dec 2023.pdf
Bloomerang Thank Yous Dec 2023.pdf
Bloomerang88 views
SUGAR cosmetics ppt by shafrinn5
SUGAR cosmetics pptSUGAR cosmetics ppt
SUGAR cosmetics ppt
shafrinn536 views
INT Value Proposition Partner- Indirect Channel-E.pptx by LoadingSystems
INT Value Proposition Partner- Indirect Channel-E.pptxINT Value Proposition Partner- Indirect Channel-E.pptx
INT Value Proposition Partner- Indirect Channel-E.pptx
LoadingSystems9 views

PTAB: Success by the Numbers

  • 1. PTAB: SUCCESS BY THE NUMBERS John T. Callahan - Shareholder Andrew P. Ritter - Associate Sughrue Mion, PLLC December 2015 © SUGHRUE MION
  • 2. Focus of Webinar • Provide a review of key aspects of successful practice before the PTAB – what do the statistics show and what does the PTAB require from a petitioner and patent owner 2© SUGHRUE MION
  • 3. Outline of Webinar • IPR Statistics – Slides 4-7 • Points to Consider from Petitioner's Perspective – Slide 8 • Preparing a Petition – Slides 9 & 10 • Real Party in Interest – Slide 11 • Expert Testimony and Declarations – Slides 12 & 13 • Notification of IPR Petition(s) and/or Other Proceedings – Slide 14 • Points to Consider from Patent Owner's Perspective – Slide 15 • Patent Owner's Preliminary Response – Slide 16 • Patent Owner's Amendment – Slides 17-20 • Settlement – Slide 21 • General Overview of IPR Proceedings – Slide 22 3© SUGHRUE MION
  • 4. IPR Statistics 4© SUGHRUE MION Statistics taken from the USPTO as of December 8, 2015 - http://www.uspto.gov/patents- application-process/appealing- patent-decisions/statistics/aia- trial-statistics
  • 5. IPR Statistics 5© SUGHRUE MION Statistics taken from the USPTO as of December 8, 2015 - http://www.uspto.gov/patents- application-process/appealing- patent-decisions/statistics/aia- trial-statistics
  • 6. IPR Statistics 6© SUGHRUE MION Statistics taken from the USPTO as of December 8, 2015 - http://www.uspto.g ov/patents- application- process/appealing -patent- decisions/statistic s/aia-trial-statistics
  • 7. IPR Statistics 7© SUGHRUE MION Statistics taken from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as of December 8, 2015 - http://www.cafc.usc ourts.gov/the- court/statistics
  • 9. Points to Consider When Preparing a Petition • Petition is limited to 60 pages (37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(i)) • Page limitation does not include appendices • When filing a petition, do not overwhelm the PTAB with too many grounds of unpatentability and prior art references • See e.g., Zetec, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., LLC, IPR2014- 00384 (Paper No. 10) – Numerous grounds of unpatentability had "underdeveloped arguments" and "would place a significant burden on the Board" to evaluate the petition (petition denied) © SUGHRUE MION 9
  • 10. Points to Consider When Preparing a Petition (cont.) • Present strongest arguments first and disregard weak arguments if they will confuse or weaken strong arguments • See e.g., Garmin International, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC, IPR2012-00001 (Paper No. 59) – petition limited to two separate combinations of art (petition granted) • Do not include arguments in claim charts • Claim charts should be limited to an element-by-element comparison based only on the disclosure of the prior art. VMWare, Inc. v. Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute, IPR2014-00901 (Paper No. 7) – claim charts should not include explanations, characterizations, conclusions, or inferences drawn from references © SUGHRUE MION 10
  • 11. Real Party in Interest • The Petition must identify "all real parties in interest." 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). • Definition of a real party in interest • "Existence of a financially controlling interest in the petitioner…; the nonparty’s relationship with the petitioner; the nonparty’s relationship to the petition itself, including the nature and/or degree of involvement in the filing; and the nature of the entity filing the petition.” Zoll Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Amer. Corp. & Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V., IPR2013-00606 (Paper No. 13) (denied motion to institute) • Failure to identify real parties in interest can result in the institution of the IPR being denied or termination of the IPR proceeding. See, Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards Inc., IPR2013- 00453 (Paper No. 88) – IPR proceeding terminated after it was determined that petitioner failed to properly identify all real parties in interest © SUGHRUE MION 11
  • 12. Expert Testimony and Declarations • Expert testimony can be crucial in providing PTAB evidence on which to rely when deciding a petition • Expert testimony is not required and PTAB has deference in interpreting patentability of claims. See, Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 2014-1575, -1576 (Fed. Cir. November 5, 2015) • In granting institution of IPR, PTAB relied on expert declaration as evidence that prior art inherently disclosed a prior art limitation. See e.g., Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Mobile Scanning Technologies, LLC, IPR2013-00093 (Paper 61) – expert declaration provided as evidence that certain components are necessary for a scanner to operate and are therefore inherent in the prior art's disclosure • Avoid conclusory statements without underlying facts • Expert declaration should provide corroborating evidence to support expert's opinion, otherwise evidence given little weight. See e.g., General Electric v. Tas Energy, IPR2014-00163 (Paper 11) – conclusory statements in expert declaration unsupported by evidence were unpersuasive © SUGHRUE MION 12
  • 13. Expert Testimony and Declarations (cont.) • Establish a clear rationale in the declaration to modify a reference • Failure to establish a clear rationale for modifying a reference to meet a claim limitation may result in the PTAB denying institution of IPR. See e.g., Wright Medical Technology, Inc. v. Orthophoenix, LLC, IPR2014-00912 (Paper 9) – expert declaration failed to provide enough evidence for why it would have been obvious to use a cutting tool disclosed in a reference to cut cancellous bone • Provide sufficient discussion of expert's arguments from the declaration in the petition • Arguments cannot be incorporated by reference from one document to another (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3)) • PTAB may not consider arguments from a declaration if not sufficiently described in the petition. See e.g., Tempur Sealy International Inc. v. Select Comfort Corporation, IPR2014-01419 (Paper 1) – failure to include arguments from expert declaration in the petition not cured by referencing the relevant portions of the expert declarations in the petition (petition denied) © SUGHRUE MION 13
  • 14. Notification of IPR Petition(s) and/or Judicial Proceedings • Petitioner is required to disclose all litigation and USPTO proceedings involving the patent that is the subject of the IPR • Failure to comply with this requirement can result in the petition for the IPR being denied • See, 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(4); 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2); Apple Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., IPR 2015-00356 (Paper No. 9) © SUGHRUE MION 14
  • 15. Patent Owner's Perspective © SUGHRUE MION 15
  • 16. Patent Owner's Preliminary Response • Patent Owner has three months to file an optional Patent Owner's Preliminary Response (37 C.F.R. § 41.107(b)) • Patent Owner's Preliminary Response gives patent owners on opportunity to argue a particular claim construction prior to institution of the IPR • Patent Owner's Preliminary Response can help point out deficiencies in the petition © SUGHRUE MION 16
  • 17. Patent Owner's Amendment • Amendment allowed by statute (37 U.S.C. § 316(d)), but PTAB often denies motions to amend the claims • Burden is on Patent Owner to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed substitute claims are patentable over the known prior art. See, Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027 (Paper 26) – PTAB granted motion to amend some of the claims © SUGHRUE MION 17
  • 18. Patent Owner's Amendment (cont.) • Requirements to Successfully Amend • Timing and PTAB Conference Requirement • Motion to amend must be filed no later than filing of patent owner's response, unless due date is provided in PTAB order (37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)) • Must confer with the PTAB before filing motion to amend (37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)) • Failure to confer with PTAB can cause motion to be denied. See e.g., Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027 (Paper 26) • A claim listing showing clearly the changes to the claims (37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b)) • One substitute claim per original patent claim, on a claim-by-claim basis (37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3)) • A discussion of where support for the changes are found in the patent © SUGHRUE MION 18
  • 19. Patent Owner's Amendment (cont.) • Successful Claim Amendments Should Demonstrate the Following • Claim scope is not broadened • Proposed amendment cannot enlarge the scope of the claims or introduce new subject matter (37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(2)) • A substitute claim having all the limitations of the original claim and added additional limitations did not enlarge the claim scope. See, Riverbed Tech., Inc. v. Silver Peak Sys., Inc., IPR2013-00402 (Paper No. 35) • Written description support for claim(s) • Must show (1) support in original disclosure of the patent; and (2) support in an earlier-filed disclosure for which benefit of the filing date of the filing date is sought (37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b)) • Merely indicating where each claim limitation is individually described may not be sufficient. Patent Owner must explain why one skilled in the art would have recognized that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter as a whole. Nichia Corp. v. Emcore Corp., IPR2012-00005 (Paper No. 27) © SUGHRUE MION 19
  • 20. Patent Owner's Amendment (cont.) • Successful Claim Amendments Should Demonstrate the Following • Patentable distinction of the proposed substitute claim over the prior art (37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c)) • Identify the specific features which are added to each substitute claim and identify the technical facts and reasoning about those feature(s) to persuade PTAB that the proposed substitute claim is patentable over the prior art. Idle Free Systems, Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027 (Paper No. 26) - PTAB granted motion to amend some of the claims • The PTAB has found that a table showing the new claims and proposed construction helpful. See, Riverbed Tech., Inc. v. Silver Peak Sys., Inc. IPR2013-00402 (Paper No. 35) – motion to amend claims granted • Distinguish over all prior art that is known to Patent Owner • Must show patentability over prior art of record and any prior art not of record but known to the Patent Owner. See, Masterimage 3D Inc. v. RealD Inc., IPR2015-00040 (Paper 42) • No prior art search necessary. However, a prior art search and expert declaration testifying that the prior art found in the search is the closest prior art may aid in demonstrating patentability (PTAB AIA Trial Roundtable, Part I (April 15, 2014)) © SUGHRUE MION 20
  • 21. Settlement • Settlement is a key aspect of IPRs • Parties are allowed to settle a case, but the PTAB has authority to prevent a settlement if the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the formal termination of the proceedings has been issued (35 § U.S.C. 317) • PTAB decisions have held that a final written decision need not be issued for the Office to have "decided on the merits of the proceeding" • See e.g., Blackberry Corp., et al. v. Mobilemedia Ideas, LLC, IPR2013- 00016 (Paper No. 31) – joint motion to terminate the proceeding denied because the proceeding had reached an advanced stage, including patent owner's response, petitioner's reply, and an oral hearing had been held © SUGHRUE MION 21
  • 22. General Overview of IPR Proceedings 22© SUGHRUE MION Taken from the Office Patent Trial Patent Guide, 77 FR 48756 as of December 8, 2015
  • 24. Disclaimer • These materials have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes. These materials reflect only the personal views of the speaker and are not individualized legal advice. It is understood that each case is fact-specific, and that the appropriate solution in any case will vary. Therefore, these materials may or may not be relevant to any particular situation. Thus, Sughrue Mion, PLLC and the speaker cannot be bound as representatives of their various present and future clients to the comments expressed in these materials. © SUGHRUE MION 24