September/October 2021
IP Litigator
By Michelle (Yongyuan) Rice; Kevin D. Rodkey
In inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the petition and patent owner’s response generally define the scope of the parties’ arguments. This scope generally limits a petitioner or patent owner’s ability to raise new arguments in subsequent papers, such as a reply or sur-reply, or at an oral hearing. For petitioners, a reply generally “may only respond to arguments raised in … [a] patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution,” and those reply arguments are often bounded by the positions taken in the initial petition. For patent owners, arguments not raised in its patent owner response may be deemed waived if raised later, and the sur-reply “may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding [petitioner] reply.” If the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) determines that a party is making untimely arguments, it may decline to consider them on the merits.
On appeal, some parties have also challenged the Board’s consideration of new arguments under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Federal Circuit will usually review the Board’s determination not to consider an argument because it was untimely for abuse of discretion, and consider whether the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) provided adequate notice to the other party and an opportunity to respond.
A party also generally cannot raise new arguments on appeal to the Federal Circuit, whose review is constrained to the record before the Board. The Federal Circuit may find an argument raised for the first time on appeal to be waived because it lacks “the benefit of the [Board]’s informed judgement” on the issue.
In each scenario, the key question comes down to what constitutes a “new” or untimely argument. This paper reviews recent decisions addressing whether new arguments were raised during an IPR and on appeal and examines how to identify and respond to potential new arguments.
Read "Identifying Impermissible New Arguments and Their Effect on IPR Proceedings and Appeals" here.
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
Reprinted with permission from the IP Litigator, published by Wolters Kluwer. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm’s clients.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Webinar
Obviousness of Biologics Inventions: Strategies for Biologics Claims in the U.S., Europe, and China
May 28,2024
Webinar
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.