May 25, 2021
Authored and Edited by C. Collette Corser; Constance P. Lee; Oulu (Lulu) Wang, Ph.D.; Brooke M. Wilner; Thomas L. Irving; Stacy Lewis*
10X Genomics challenged claims in Bio-Rad’s U.S. Pat. No. 9,562,837 (“the ’837 patent) and 9,896,722 (“the ’722 patent”). The PTAB issued four mixed Final Written Decisions in 10X Genomics Inc. v. Bio-Rad Labs., Inc., IPR2020-00086, -00087, -00088, and -00089, finding most claims unpatentable but allowing a few to survive.[1]
In its conclusion in all four FWDs, the PTAB included a most interesting footnote:
Should Patent Owner wish to pursue amendment of the challenged claims in a reissue or reexamination proceeding subsequent to the issuance of this decision, we draw Patent Owner’s attention to the April 2019 Notice Regarding Options for Amendments by Patent Owner Through Reissue or Reexamination During a Pending AIA Trial Proceeding, 84 Fed. Reg. 16,654 (Apr. 22, 2019). If Patent Owner chooses to file a reissue application or a request for reexamination of the challenged patent, we remind Patent Owner of its continuing obligation to notify the Board of any such related matters in updated mandatory notices. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), (b)(2).
In addition to an obligation to notify the PTAB under Rule 42.8, Patent Owners must also consider the following:
(i) A claim that is not patentably distinct from a finally refused or canceled claim; or
(ii) An amendment of a specification or of a drawing that was denied during the trial proceeding, but this provision does not apply to an application or patent that has a different written description.
We understand that this footnote appears regularly now in many PTAB decisions. If a patentee files a reissue application, the “surrender of the original patent shall take effect upon the issue of the reissued patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 252. Have patent owners been filing reissue applications and amending claims to try and get around an IPR decision, but not informing the Board as required under the Board’s mandatory notices?
If the reissue patent issues before the Board’s Final Written Decision issues, the patent challenged in that IPR no longer exists. But this is not likely to be a successful end-run, given that IPRs finish within 12 months of institution (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)) and the average time from filing to issuance for reissue patents is close to 2 years. See Pendency Update and Continuation Practice Data, Andrew Faile, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations, August 13, 2020, Patent Public Advisory Committee Quarterly Meeting, p. 3 (“utility, plant, reissue total pendency 23.1 months”).
Alternatively, is the PTAB simply reminding patent owners that there are options even though their patent has been challenged and some claims may be found unpatentable? For example, patentably distinct claims may still be pursued.
Maintaining options as a patent owner by filing continuation applications may help avoid costly reissue or reexamination applications. But whether pursuing claims in continuation, reissue, or reexamination applications, patentees should bear in mind the requirement that any claims pursued must be patentably distinct from a finally refused or canceled claim in an AIA trial proceeding. And in all cases, those filing papers before the Office and the Board should remember to comply with all applicable duties of notice, candor and disclosure.
[1]10X and Bio-Rad are engaged in multiple district court and IPR proceedings on several patents. With respect to the ’837 and ‘722 patents, there is a co-pending district court case, but it is stayed.
*Stacy Lewis is a Law Clerk at Finnegan.
Copyright © 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Webinar
Building a Strong ADC Patent Portfolio – From Prosecution and Litigation Perspectives
May 15, 2024
Webinar
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.