直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Firm
  • Offices
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • IP Health Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

At the PTAB Blog

USPTO Director Initiates Sua Sponte Review to Address Timing of Finitiv Factor 4 Stipulation

September 16, 2022

By Shannon M. Patrick

Edited by Joshua L. Goldberg

The Director of the USPTO initiated a sua sponte Director review in NXP USA, Inc. v. Impinj, Inc., IPR 2021-01556, Paper 13 (Sept. 7, 2022). The review was limited to the question of whether “the Board may reconsider a decision to deny institution based on a stipulation filed after the institution decision is made.” Id. at 3.

As an initial matter, the Board denied petititoner’s request for rehearing of the decision denying institution, in view of Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). After institution was denied, petitioner had submitted a stipulation “agreeing that, should trial be instituted in this case, Petitioner will not pursue any grounds based on the [prior art] references relied on in this IPR matter.” NXP, Paper 13 at 2-3. In its rehearing decision, the Board considered petitioner’s stipulation and its related effect on the Fintiv factor 4 analysis. The Board found that petitioner could have offered the stipulation prior to the decision denying institution, but instead waited and offered no explanation or justification for offering the stipulation “so late in [the] proceeding.” Id. at 3.

The Director agreed with the Board’s conclusion and noted that a stipulation first offered after a decision denying institution is not a proper bases for granting rehearing. The Director pointed to the Office’s June 21, 2022 Memorandum to illustrate the policy concerning potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts. Finding that the only appropriate time to offer a stipulation related to Fintiv factor 4 is prior to an institution decision, the Director explained that allowing a stipulation to be offered for the first time on rehearing would frustrate the goal of mitigating conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts and creates the opportunity for gamesmanship.

Related Practices

Post-Grant Proceedings

IPR, PGR, and CBM

Related Offices

Atlanta, GA

Washington, DC

Contacts

Shannon M. Patrick
Associate
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6558
Email
Joshua L. Goldberg
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 6092
Email

Copyright © 2022 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.

Related Insights

Webinar

Obtaining and Managing REMS Patents: What Patent Prosecutors Need to Know, USPTO and FDA Policies and Rules

March 21, 2023

Webinar

Virtual Seminar

Careers in IP Law: A world of possibilities

March 1, 2023

Virtual

Seminar

Fundamentals of Patent Litigation 2023

February 22, 2023

New York

Webinar

Patent Law Year in Review 2022

January 31, 2023

Webinar

Prosecution First Blog

Expecting the “Unexpected”: Asserted Claims Found Invalid After Allegedly “Unexpected Results” Suggested in Prior Art References

January 27, 2023

Prosecution First Blog

Prosecution Pointer 365

January 26, 2023

Articles

IP Issues Surrounding Machine Learning and AI in the Pharmaceutical Space

January 2023

Articles

Strategic Intellectual Property Considerations for Protecting AI Innovations in Life Sciences

January 2023

Articles

Patent Infringement: When Is a Product Sold “Within the United States”?

November/December 2023

Due to international data regulations, we’ve recently 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.

The Finnegan UPC Hub is a one-stop shop for our insights related to the Unified Patent Court (UPC).

Finnegan
Click Here
  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • EEO Statement

© 2023 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP