January 17, 2024
Authored and Edited by Annmarie Dressler; Umber Aggarwal; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
In Signify North America Corp. v. Cao Lighting, Inc.,[1] the Board instituted Signify’s IPR and decided two issues: (i) whether the two asserted printed publication references qualified as prior art and (ii) whether discretionary denial was warranted because Signify presented substantially the same prior art and arguments as those asserted by a third party in a previously filed IPR challenging the same patent.
For the first issue, the Board noted that both references included indicia of public accessibility on their face (date and price), were published by an “established publisher,” and the publisher had webpages for the references indicating the same date identified on the references. The Board concluded that this evidence was sufficient to satisfy the reasonable likelihood standard that is applied at the institution stage when determining whether printed publications were publicly accessible before the critical date and, thus, prior art.[2]
For the second issue, the Patent Owner argued against institution under § 314(a) and § 325(d) because Signify presented substantially similar art and arguments as a previously instituted IPR filed by a third party and challenging the same patent.[3] The Board refused to exercise its discretion to deny institution, relying predominantly on General Plastics factor 1 (whether the same petitioner filed the previous IPR), and factor 3 (whether the petitioner used the previous IPR as a roadmap to improve its arguments in the subsequent IPR). The Board weighed factor 1 “heavily against discretionary denial” because there was no evidence of any relationship between Signify and the petitioner in the earlier filed IPR. It rejected Patent Owner’s argument that Signify’s alleged copying of prior art and arguments from the earlier IPR created a relationship between the parties.[4] The Board also weighed Factor 3 against denial because Patent Owner failed to present factual evidence showing that Signify used the Board’s institution decision in the earlier IPR as a roadmap to improve its arguments. In fact, the Board noted that “road-mapping concern[s]” are either “not relevant” or “less relevant” when the earlier IPR was instituted, because it does not present a situation in which a petitioner obtains “multiple-bites-of-an-apple.”
When assessing the public accessibility of a printed publication, the Board may consider various indicia on the face of a reference, including date, cost information, identifiers indicating publishing year, reputation of publisher, and publisher’s webpages corroborating the publication date.
Also, when a patent is challenged in multiple IPRs, the Board may consider a party’s relationship to the petitioner of the earlier IPRs and whether the earlier IPRs were instituted, which may minimize or eliminate road-mapping concerns.
[1] IPR2023-00214 (P.T.A.B. June 15, 2023).
[2] Id. at 17-20.
[3] Id. at 20.
[4] Id. at 20-21.
Copyright © 2024 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.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Webinar
May 9, 2024
Webinar
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.