February 22, 2016
Authored and Edited by Alex Kwan-Ho Chung, Ph.D.
In an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision, a split Federal Circuit panel affirmed that (1) the final order of the PTAB need not address every claim raised in the petition for review, and (2) the PTAB did not err in denying Mentor’s motion to amend and substitute claims. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp. Nos. 2014-1516, -1530 (Fed. Cir. February 10, 2016).
First, the Court held that there is “no statutory requirement that the Board’s final decision address every claim raised in a petition for inter partes review.” Guided by text of the statute, the Court distinguished the claims that must be addressed in the final decision from the claims raised in the petition, and found that the PTAB can pick and choose which claims to institute on a claim-by-claim basis. Moreover, the Court saw little sense in requiring the PTAB to issue final decisions on validity of uninstituted patent claims without the benefit of argument and record created after institution.
Second, the Court held that the PTAB correctly assigned the burden of proving patentability to the patent owner for the claims that were not challenged in the petition but were proposed for substitution by the patent owner. Such finding was consistent, the Court reasoned, with the case law where the PTAB placed burden of proof on patent owner based on the prior art of record, as was the case here. Further, statutory language placed the burden of proof on petitioner specifically for claims that were challenged in a petition, the Court found.
In a lengthy dissent, Judge Newman advanced four arguments. First, allowing the PTAB to pick and choose which claims to institute creates an “absence of finality negat[ing] the AIA’s purpose of providing an alternative and efficient forum for resolving patent validity issues.” Second, substantive rulings made during the institution determination should be appealable if such rulings were material to the final decision on validity. Third, the PTO’s practice of assigning the institution decision to the PTAB is contrary to the AIA, which assigns the decision to institute to the Director and assigns the trial and final decision to the PTAB. Finally, the PTO’s practice of regularly denying amendments in IPR proceedings undermines the balance struck between allowing amendment and lowering the evidentiary standard of invalidity applied by the courts.
37 C.F.R. § 42.108, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), Synopsys, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Copyright © 2016 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.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
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.