June 03, 2013
In ScentAir Technologies, Inc. v. Prolitec, Inc. IPR2013-00179 (JL), Paper 9 (April 16, 2013), the Board denied ScentAir’s request to file a motion to disqualify Prolitec’s lead counsel from representing Prolitec in an inter partes review (IPR) because they were subject to a protective order in a related district court case. Following the decision, Prolitec filed a motion in the related case, Prolitec Inc., v. Scentair Technologies, Inc., Case No. 12-C-483 (E.D. Wis. May 17, 2013), requesting that the Court clarify the scope of the prosecution bar and explicitly permit its lead counsel to participate in the IPR. The Court concluded that Prolitec’s lead counsel may participate in the IPR proceeding, but may not participate in amending, substituting, or adding claims.
The Court found that, while the protective order’s prosecution bar provision did not discuss inter partes review, it described the types of action that are prohibited (e.g., drafting or advising in drafting or amending patent claims). Consequently, the Court concluded that inter partes review falls within the scope of the prosecution bar as claims can be amended or drafted in an IPR proceeding.
The Court also found that, while Proltiec did not show that its USPTO counsel would not be involved in competitive decision making, the “purpose of this particular AIA reform was to ‘convert inter partes reexamination from an examinational to an adjudicative proceeding.’” The Court thus determined that the litigation skills of Prolitec’s lead counsel would be required during the IPR proceeding, and that ScentAir’s concern regarding inadvertent use of its confidential information was insufficient to overcome the potential harm to Prolitec. Accordingly, the Court allowed Prolitec’s lead counsel to participate in the IPR, but barred the counsel from amending, substituting, or adding claims during the proceeding.
Copyright © 2013 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. Additional disclaimer information.
Conference
2024 Hispanic National Bar Association Annual Convention
September 4-6, 2024
National Harbor
Webinar
June 13, 2024
Webinar
Conference
4th Spring Pharmaceutical Synchrotron X-Ray Powder Diffraction Workshop
June 10-11, 2024
Basel
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Conference
2024 Hispanic National Bar Association Intellectual Property Law Institute
June 7-8, 2024
Washington
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
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.