December 22, 2020
Authored and Edited by Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.; Kevin D. Rodkey
On Thursday, December 17, 2020, the Board designated portions of two decisions applying the Fintiv factors as precedential: Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A) and Snap, Inc. v. SRK Technology LLC, IPR2020-00820, Paper 15 (Oct. 21, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A).
The Fintiv factors, set forth below, guide the Board’s analysis regarding whether to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) in view of a related litigation:
In Sotera Wireless, the Board noted that the petitioner’s broad stipulation not to pursue in district court any ground that it raised, or reasonably could have raised, in the IPR “weighs strongly in favor of not exercising discretion to deny institution.” The Sotera petition was filed approximately two weeks before the one-year time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). At the time of institution, infringement and invalidity contentions had been served in district court, but fact discovery was still ongoing, and trial was set to begin around the time that the Board would issue its final written decision if the IPR was instituted. The petitioner had filed a stipulation in the district court stating that, if the PTAB instituted the IPR, the petitioner would not pursue in the district court any ground that it raised or reasonably could have raised in the IPR. The petitioner had also filed a motion to stay, but the district court had not yet ruled on the motion. Applying a “holistic review” of the Fintiv factors, including (1) that the petition timing was reasonable in view of the number of patents and challenged claims in this and petitioner’s related petitions, (2) the relatively limited investment in the parallel proceeding to date, and (3) the minimal potential overlap between the two proceedings in view of petitioner’s stipulation, the Board declined to deny institution under § 314(a).
In Snap, Inc., the Board noted that a district court stay that would remain in place until a final written decision issued in the IPR “weighed strongly against exercising discretion to deny institution.” In this case, at the time the petition was filed, preliminary contentions and claim construction positions had been exchanged and initial discovery had begun in the district court, but the court had not yet issued any substantive orders and had stayed the case pending either a denial of institution or a final written decision in the IPR. Taking a “holistic view” of the Fintiv factors, the Board declined to deny institution under § 314(a), noting (1) the stay in the parallel district court proceeding, (2) the early stages of that parallel proceeding prior to the stay being granted, and (3) the lack of overlap between the invalidity contentions in the district court proceeding and the challenges raised in the petition.
Copyright © 2020 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
Webinar
May 9, 2024
Webinar
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
At the PTAB Blog
USPTO Releases Notice of Proposed Rule Making Codifying Several Precedential Case Factors
April 25, 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.