September 05, 2013
Authored and Edited by Rachel L. Emsley
The PTAB’s reluctance to extend the page limit for Covered Business Method Review Petitions (80 pages) has practitioners scrambling for strategies to present all their arguments within the prescribed limits. One strategy parties have employed is to file multiple petitions. To date, there are seven instances where a party has filed a pair of petitions for a Covered Business Method Review on the same patent.
Apple, Inc. filed two sets of petitions (CBM 2013-19/-20; and CBM 2013-21/-23). Filing each set of petitions on the same day, Apple divided its petitions based on the grounds—one petition for 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112 issues, and the other for 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (for each of the two patents). The Board has not yet issued a decision on those petitions.
The Board has considered five sets of petitions filed by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, instituting two complete sets and one petition from the other three sets. Liberty Mutual divided its issues based on prior art references, presenting a distinct set of references in each of its petitions. In its decisions, the PTAB acknowledged the sister-petitions but did not deny such split petitions on procedural grounds. In the three Liberty Mutual sets where the PTAB denied one petition, but instituted the other (CBM 2012-10/-11; CBM 2013-1/-2; and CBM 2013-3/-4), the Board carefully considered the merits of each of the petitions and denied petitions only on substantive grounds.
In the two Liberty mutual sets where the Board instituted both petitions, the Board sanctioned multiple petitions. In one set (CBM 2012-3 and -9), the Board instituted both proceedings even though the petitions were filed two months apart, showing not only that the PTAB will consider multiple petitions on the merits, but will do so regardless of when they are received. In the other set (CBM 2012-2 and -4), the Board recognized that reviews of the same patent may benefit from consideration of multiple petitions on a parallel track. The Board did not formally join the cases, but set a joint hearing and asked that the parties coordinate discovery.
Given the PTAB’s apparent willingness to substantively consider multiple petitions challenging the same patent, petitioners addressing many claims or relying on several prior art references or invalidity theories should consider splitting their petitions in a logical fashion to avoid forgoing strong arguments before the PTAB.
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.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
April 19, 2024
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
April 12, 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.