PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 4 – The Institution Decision

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Webinar: Request for Comments on AIA Trial Proceedings Before the PTAB July 29, Scott Boalick, Vice Chief Judge (Acting) Patent Trial and Appeal.
Advertisements

THE SUPREME IMPORTANCE OF A PARENTS ROLE IN CREATING COLLABORATION Presented by SANDEE WINKELMAN.
The Brave New World of Class Certification in Antitrust Cases Dallas Bar Association Antitrust & Trade Regulation Section March 24, 2011 Dallas Bar Association.
ARGUING YOUR APPEAL BEFORE A PANEL OF THE BPAI IN AN INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION Kevin F. Turner Administrative Patent Judge Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences.
PROSECUTION APPEALS Presented at: Webb & Co. Rehovot, Israel Date: February 14, 2013 Presented by: Roy D. Gross Associate St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens.
BIPC.COM STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OF POST ISSUANCE PATENTABILITY REVIEW: THE NEW, OLD, AND NO LONGER Presented By: Todd R. Walters, Esq. B UCHANAN, I NGERSOLL.
Administrative Trials
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association CURRENT TRENDS/EFFECTS OF AIA on US Patent Practice at the US Patent.
Connecticut Intellectual Property Law Association Scott E. Kamholz, M.D., Ph.D. Administrative Patent Judge Patent Trial and Appeal Board September 25,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Update October 22, Chief Judge James Donald Smith Patent Trial and Appeal Board United States Patent and Trademark.
Recent Court Decisions Impacting Review Proceedings Under The AIA J. Steven Baughman Ropes & Gray LLP Nancy J. Linck, Esq. Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck.
© 2015 Fox Rothschild Inter Partes Review Lessons Learned Scott R. Bialecki Fox Rothschild LLP June 24, 2015.
Post-Grant Proceedings Under The America Invents Act Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association “Washington in the West” Conference January 29,
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Update on Inter Partes Disputes and the PTAB _____ John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association EMERGING TRENDS IN INTER PARTES REVIEW PRACTICE TOM ENGELLENNER Pepper Hamilton, LLP.
Post-Grant & Inter Partes Review Procedures Presented to AIPPI, Italy February 10, 2012 By Joerg-Uwe Szipl Griffin & Szipl, P.C.
Practice Before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
Reexamination at the USPTO Robert A. Clarke Deputy Director Office of Patent Legal Administration USPTO Robert A. Clarke Deputy Director Office of Patent.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association The Presumption of Patent Validity in the U.S. Tom Engellenner AIPLA Presentation to.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association Interplay between Litigation and the AIA __________ An Overview John B. Pegram Fish.
Challenges Associated With, And Strategies For, U.S. Patent Litigation Russell E. Levine, P.C. Kirkland & Ellis LLP LES Asia.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association PTAB Update: IPR & CBM Sponsored by the Japan Patent Office Ron Harris, The Harris Firm.
New Ex Parte Appeal Rules Patent and Trademark Practice Group Meeting January 26, 2012.
© COPYRIGHT DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Post Grant Proceedings Before the USPTO and Litigation Strategies Under the AIA Panelists:David.
Peter C. Schechter Vice-Chair, AIPPI-US Div. of AIPLA Partner, Osha Liang LLP Post-Issuance Review Proceedings: Update & Trends in IPR & PGR 1 © AIPLA.
1 1 American Intellectual Property Law Association Inter Partes Review: Recent Cases STEVEN F. MEYER AIPLA IP in Japan Committee Annual Pre-Meeting October.
Derivation Proceedings Gene Quinn Patent Attorney IPWatchdog.com March 27 th, 2012.
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 6 – Patent Owner Response 1.
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 2 – The Petition 1. The Petition 2.
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 7 – Petitioner Reply and Motion to Exclude 1.
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences May 15, Interference Practice Q&A James T. Moore Administrative Patent Judge
Strategic Considerations for Duplicative Filings before the PTAB 1.
Presentation at Biotechnology/ Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership Program Partnership Program March 15, 2005 POST-GRANT REVIEW: A COMPARISON.
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 9 – Final Written Decision and Appeal 1.
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 5 – Motions Practice, Discovery, and Trial Management Issues 1.
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 3 – The Patent Owner Preliminary Response 1.
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 11 – Bio/Pharma Issues 1.
GOVERNMENT LAWYER’S REPRESENTATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES Craig E. Leen City Attorney City of Coral Gables *** With special thanks to Yaneris Figueroa,
The Applicability of Patent-Agent Privilege After In re Queen’s University at Kingston Presented by Rachel Perry © 2016 Workman Nydegger.
GETTING STARTED: Notices of appeal & the initial appellate documents.
ptab game theory: patent owner versus petitioner
Omer/LES International/
Inter Partes Review and District Court
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 1 – PTAB Basics and Procedure
PTABLitigationBlog.com: PTAB Popularity and Reasons
U. S. District Court Perspective on Patent Adjudication Barbara M. G
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 12 – PTAB Popularity and Reasons
Patent Practice in View Of PTAB AIA Proceedings
Multiple Parties and Multiple Petitions in Post-Grant Proceedings
POST Grant RevieW UPDATES
CBM/PGR Differences Differences in time periods of availability, parties who have standing, grounds of challenge available, standards of review, and.
Tues., Oct. 22.
Sixth Circuit Federal Criminal Appeals
USPTO Appeal Process: Appeal Strategies and New Rules
Deputy Chief Administrative Patent Judge January 25, 2018
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Mark Wine June 6, 2014
Mark P. Wine Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP June 6, 2014
Inter Partes Review Best Practices 2018
PTAB Bootcamp: Nuts and Bolts of IPRs, PGRs, and CBMs
Karl Renner Dorothy Whelan Chris Marchese
PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 8 – Oral Hearing
Prosecution Luncheon Patent March 2017
The Court System Appeals.
Federal Circuit control over PTAB in post-grant proceedings Fordham IP Institute Conference 2018 John Richards.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board Statistics
SAS Institute v. Iancu SAS appeals arguing § 318 requires deciding patentability of all claims challenged ComlimentSoft sues SAS for patent infringement.
PTAB Bar Association Conference—March 2, 2017
Overview of Legal Process in IP Cases
Overview of Legal Process in IP Cases
James Toupin POST-GRANT REVIEW: A COMPARISON OF USPTO
Presentation transcript:

PTAB Litigation 2016 Part 4 – The Institution Decision

Institution Decision

Institution Decision Typically about 6 months after the Petition is filed, the Board will give an initial thumbs up/down on the grounds presented by the petitioner; Based on petition and any arguments provided by patent owner in Preliminary Response; Board provides a detailed account of its current read of substantive issues in the case; Can deny some or all of the grounds if those grounds fail to meet the reasonable likelihood standard or are otherwise lacking (e.g., redundancy).

Institution Decision Board Panel Makeup: 3 Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”), designated by Chief Judge; Occasionally may expand to 5+ APJs (including original 3), e.g., if: issue of exceptional importance; conflicting decisions; Commissioner’s request (first impression, decision against public interest); 1 or 2 APJs may decide institution or rehearing on institution.

Institution Decision Standard: No institution unless: “reasonable likelihood”; at least one challenged claim; is unpatentable (§ 102, 103); Board may institute: all or only some claims; on all or only some grounds raised. (37 C.F.R. § 42.108.)

Institution Decision Timing: Within 3 Months of POPR deadline/filing: “The Board acting on behalf of the Director will determine whether to institute a trial within three months of the date the patent owner’s preliminary response was due or was filed, whichever is first.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48757. “The Board may take up petitions or motions for decisions in any order, may grant, deny, or dismiss any petition or motion, and may enter any appropriate order.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(a).

Institution Decision Statistics: FY2015 – 69% instituted counting joinder cases; 66% instituted ignoring joinder cases. Historic rate – 73% instituted counting joinder cases; 71% instituted ignoring joinder cases. Contrast with early rates of around 85%. Source: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2015-07-31%20PTAB.PDF * as of 7/31/2015

Institution Decision Requests for Rehearing: Rehearing requests may be filed by both Petitioner and Patent Owner; No preauthorization necessary; “abuse of discretion” standard – must identify an argument that was made that the panel “misapprehended or overlooked;” No tolling; Time to file request: Some grounds denied, some instituted: within 14 days; Decision not to institute trial: within 30 days. (37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c),(d).)

Institution Decision Appeal: Not permitted: “A decision by the Board on whether to institute a trial is final and nonappealable.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Div., Inc. v. Volcano Corp., 749 F.3d 1373, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (held Director’s decision not to institute IPR may not be appealed to Federal Circuit); In re Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC., 749 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (denied mandamus petition challenging Director’s decision not to institute IPR); In re P&G Co., 749 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (denied mandamus petition challenging Director’s decision to institute IPR); Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC v. Lee, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1400, 1405 (E.D. Va. 2014) (held district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over action seeking review of decision whether to institute IPR).