Fintiv Factors 2 and 4 Save Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
December 17, 2021
Authored and Edited by Troy V. Viger; Shannon M. Patrick; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
In SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., No. IPR2021-00544, Paper 13 (PTAB Nov. 17, 2021), the PTAB granted the petitioner’s Request for Rehearing and Institution of Inter Partes Review (“IPR”).
The Board initially denied institution based on an analysis of the Fintiv factors.[1] In its Request for Rehearing, the petitioner argued that the Board abused its discretion in denying institution. The petitioner’s arguments centered on two of the four Fintiv factors: factor 2 (“proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision”) and factor 4 (“overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding”).
In its initial Decision Denying Institution, the Board determined that Fintiv factor 2 weighed “in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution” based on a parallel U.S. International Trade Commission investigation. SharkNinja, IPR2021-00544, Paper 13. In its Request for Rehearing, the petitioner argued that the Board mistakenly treated the ITC’s initial determination date as the final determination date and, consequentially, overlooked the target date for final determination. Agreeing with the petitioner, the Board found that Fintiv factor 2 was neutral because of the close proximity between the ITC’s target date and the expected final written decision.
In its initial Decision Denying Institution, the Board determined that Fintiv factor 4 weighed “marginally in favor of not exercising discretion to deny institution.” SharkNinja, IPR2021-00544, Paper 13. In its Request for Rehearing, the petitioner agreed to a broad stipulation of IPR estoppel. As a result, the PTAB found that Fintiv factor 4 “weigh[ed] strongly in favor of not exercising [its] discretion to deny institution,” since the petitioner’s stipulation removed the concern of duplicative efforts between the three proceedings. Id. at 12. The Board further noted that the stipulation promoted efficiency and would avoid conflicting decisions.
Concluding that the change in the Fintiv factor analysis justified rehearing and reconsideration of its previous decision, the Board considered the merits of the petition. Ultimately, the Board determined that the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of establishing claim 1 of the challenged patent was obvious in light of the prior art and granted institution.
[1] Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”).
Copyright © 2021 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. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
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.