February 05, 2016
Authored and Edited by Linda J. Thayer; Maureen D. Queler
As of December 31, 2015, the PTAB had reached a final disposition on 2,749 petitions for inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review of a covered business method (CBM), or post-grant review (PGR). Of that number, roughly half (1342) resulted in institution, of which 817 resulted in a final written decision. This two-part series will provide a summary of what were the most important, or at least most interesting, decisions of 2015.
This decision is important for its explanation of the factors that support finding that an entity is a real-party-in-interest that must be named in a petition. In this case, the PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Zerto, Inc. because it believed that a real party-in-interest (Zerto Ltd.) was omitted. The PTAB cited the existence of a parent-wholly-owned-subsidiary relationship between the two entities, an overlap in the Board of Directors, a lack of distinction between the two on a website, and commingled financial reports as relevant factors. Other factors have been identified in Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc., IPR2013-00453, Paper 88 and Galderma S.A. v. Allergan Industrie, SAS, IPR2014-01422, Paper 14.
In this case, an Expanded Panel held that § 315(c) does not preclude joinder of the same petitioner (here, Target) and that it allows for issue joinder even though the statutory language does not specifically address it. The Expanded Panel found support for these conclusions in statements made by Senator Kyl in the legislative history where he suggests joinder of not only parties but also issues. This decision overruled a contrary finding by the original panel and provides support for the PTAB to grant joinder and allow a time-barred petitioner to have a second-bite at the apple, i.e., to join its own prior instituted proceeding and raise issues that were not raised in the prior proceeding.
This case is a must-read for those considering requesting rehearing. Factors the PTAB will consider include: whether the issue conflicts with a reviewing court or precedential Board decision, or whether the issue raises a conflicting legal interpretation of a statue/regulation. The case also comments that the presence of a dissent in an institution decision does not, by itself, warrant panel expansion. And, not surprisingly, any request for rehearing may not include new arguments.
Westlake is one of two Board decisions made precedential by the Board in 2015, bringing the number of precedential Board decisions to three. Westlake holds that estoppel is applied on a “claim-by-claim basis” per §325(e)(1) and §328(a). Therefore, non-instituted claims and claims not the subject of a final written decision are fair game for a second petition, even if the PTAB can deny the second petition using its discretion under §325(d). For more on estoppel, see Apotex Inc. v. Wyeth LLC, IPR2015-00873, Paper 8, which applied § 315(e)(1) estoppel when the Petitioner “could have raised” the combination of prior art in first petition.
This decision is important as it represents the first institution of a post-grant review (PGR). Petitioner challenged the claims under §§101, 102 and 103. The Board found it more likely than not that Petitioners would prevail on the ground that the challenged claims were patent-ineligible. PGR was also instituted on the ground that the claims are more likely than not obvious over the cited prior art. Oral argument is scheduled for March 2016, and we will likely see the first decision in a PGR by summer 2016. This case is also worth watching because the Patent Owner filed a Contingent Motion to Amend.
Be sure to visit Part 2 of this series to finish reading about some of the most interesting and impactful decisions of 2015.
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
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
Conference
Best Practices in Intellectual Property– A Decade of Dedication to IP Excellence
April 8-9, 2024
Tel Aviv
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.