May 13, 2016
Authored and Edited by Anthony A. Hartmann; James D. Stein
In a Petition for Inter Partes Review, a petitioner may challenge patent claims as being anticipated and/or obvious. 35 U.S.C. §311(b). A challenge based on 35 U.S.C. §112, such as indefiniteness, is unavailable. However, indefiniteness may become an issue during claim construction, particularly for means-plus-function limitations.
In nearly a dozen cases, the PTAB has denied institution because it found that the petitioner did not show a limitation to be definite. In certain of those cases, the PTAB has concluded that “Petitioner has not demonstrated that the recitation of [a limitation]... viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, sufficiently informs those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty,” and thus “has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail.” Medshape, Inc. v. Cayenne Medical, Inc., IPR2015-00848 (Sept. 14, 2015) (Paper 9) at 11-12. In Medshape, the PTAB applied the Supreme Court’s opinion in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014), that a claim is indefinite if it fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, about the scope of the invention. Id. at 8.
While Medshape failed to institute a recent IPR against certain claims, it was recently able to obtain a summary judgment ruling of invalidity in a parallel district court proceeding. Cayenne Medical, Inc. v. Medshape, Inc., No. 2.14-cv-0451, slip op. at 15 (D. Ariz. May 6, 2016). In particular, the district court found the PTAB’s finding of indefiniteness to be compelling evidence of invalidity in that particular case. Id. at 8. This appears to be the first district court finding of indefiniteness based on a PTAB decision.
This contrasts with Fortinet v. Sophos, where the district court reached the opposite conclusion under similar facts. Based on the PTAB’s denial of institution for indefiniteness in Fortinet, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., IPR2015-00617 (August 13, 2015) (Paper 9) at 18-19, Fortinet sought summary judgment of invalidity before the district court. Fortinet, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146317, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2015). There, the Court found a lack of clear and convincing evidence that the claims were indefinite. Id. at *25-26. While the Court found the PTAB decision “persuasive” in some aspects, it emphasized that the decision was “not binding in any way,” and that “the PTAB was not asked to invalidate based on indefiniteness.” Id. at *28 & n.4.
The differences in outcome may reflect several variables regarding these decisions. First, a PTAB decision is not binding on a district court. Second, the PTAB found the petitioner to have failed to establish the term to be definite; not that Petitioner established indefiniteness. Third, different panels may reach different conclusions on the issue of a claim’s definiteness. Compare IPR2014-01170 (no institution) with IPR2015-01872 (institution). Finally, the PTAB decisions were only one factor considered by either Court.
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.
Hybrid Conference
2024 California Intellectual Property Law Institute
October 21-22,2024
San Francisco
Conference
2024 Licensing Executives Society USA – Canada Annual Meeting
October 20-23, 2024
New Orleans
Conference
4th Annual Passport to Proficiency on the Essentials of Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA
October 8-24, 2024
Virtual
Hybrid Conference
2024 New York Intellectual Property Law Institute
September 30 - October 1, 2024
New York
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.