May 13, 2020
Authored and Edited by Brooke M. Wilner; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
The PTAB has discretion to decline to institute an inter partes review for many reasons, including if a parallel district court proceeding is ongoing. In Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020)—designated precedential on May 5, 2020—the Board described six non-dispositive factors it may consider under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) in determining whether to institute an IPR that involves an ongoing parallel district court proceeding.1
When the petitioner in Apple Inc. filed its petition, a district court proceeding involving the same patent was fairly advanced, although no trial date had yet been set. By the time the patent owner filed its preliminary response, the district court had scheduled the trial to be held six months before the statutory deadline for the PTAB’s Final Written Decision. The patent owner argued that the PTAB should deny institution because the petitioner had raised the same invalidity challenges in the district court proceeding, which would be resolved before the PTAB reached its final decision.
The Board identified six non-dispositive factors that it considered in determining whether to institute the IPR under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a):
Apple Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11, at 6. The Board explained that these factors often overlap, and that it will take a holistic view of overarching concerns including judicial efficiency, fairness, and patent quality. The decision then discussed the six factors, explaining how each should be analyzed.
For example, in considering the factors, the Board noted that if the district court in a parallel proceeding has stayed the case, that fact should weigh heavily against denying institution. So too would the fact that the district court has expressed on the record that it would reconsider a previously-denied motion to stay upon institution. These considerations remain important even if the district court case was stayed pending resolution of an International Trade Commission investigation, despite the fact that neither the Board nor the district court would be bound by the Commission’s final determinations.
The Board also noted that timing of the petition’s filing is also relevant. If the petitioner filed the petition soon after learning which claims would be asserted in the district court proceeding, that would weigh against denying institution. But if the petitioner waited to file its petition, for example until after the patent owner responded to invalidity contentions, those facts would favor denial.
And, relevant to the Apple Inc. case, the Board found that if a district court trial has been scheduled to begin before the statutory deadline for the PTAB to issue its final written decision, that fact weighs in favor of denying institution. The panel thus requested that the parties submit supplemental briefing to present facts that may be relevant to the six discretionary factors. The Board ordered that the briefing be no longer than 10 pages per party, and may be accompanied by documentary, but not declaratory, evidence.
The parties submitted the requested briefing, but the Board has not yet decided whether to institute the IPR.
Endnotes
1 On the same day, the USPTO de-designated the Board decision in Oracle Corp. v. Click-to-Call Techs. LP, IPR2013-00312, Paper 36 (Oct. 30, 2013) in view of the Precedential Opinion Panel’s decision in GoPro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc., IPR2018-01734, Paper 38 (Aug. 23, 2019). In GoPro, the Precedential Opinion Panel held that “service of a pleading asserting a claim alleging infringement triggers the one-year time period for a petitioner to file a petition under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), even where the serving party lacks standing to sue or where the pleading is otherwise deficient.” Id. at 6.
Copyright © 2020 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.
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
Conference
Boston Intellectual Property Law Association 4th Annual Symposium
April 10-11, 2024
Boston
IAPP Global Privacy Summit 2024
April 3-4, 2024
Washington
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
Winning the Battle but Not the War: Disclaimer Requirement Overturned, Section 2(d) Objection Upheld
March 28, 2024
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.