August 28, 2023
Authored and Edited by Soniya Shah; Daniel F. Klodowski
On July 6, 2023, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published an updated study analyzing the filing of multiple petitions at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under the America Invents Act. The study separately analyzed the practices of filing serial petitions and parallel petitions, as well as the frequency and effectiveness of the same post-grant petitioner filing multiple petitions from 2015-2022.
A “serial” petition refers to a follow-on petition filed more than 90 days after the petitioner files a first petition challenging the same patent. A “parallel” petition refers to a petition filed fewer than 90 days from the first petition by the same petitioner against the same patent.
Overall, the study noted a decline in the number of both serial and parallel petitions filed from 2015-2022. The study further found an increase in the number of single-petition challenges to patents, which increased (as a proportion of total petition filings) from 66% in 2015 to 72% in 2022.
Two noteworthy cases drove the trends in serial petitions. Following the PTAB’s issuance of its decisions in NVIDIA Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Case IPR2016-00134, Paper 9 (PTAB May 4, 2016), and General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Case IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017), the number of serial petitions filed decreased significantly. In NVIDIA, the Board listed several factors for evaluating how multiple challenges to the same patent will be adjudicated. Those factors are:
In General Plastic, a precedential decision, the PTAB reiterated the NVIDIA factors and held that the PTAB may discretionarily deny a petition using the seven non-exclusive NVIDIA factors.
The PTAB followed a similar trend for parallel petitions after issuing its decision in Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc., IPR2019- 00224, Paper 10 (PTAB Apr. 3, 2019). In that decision, the Board requested additional briefing from the parties regarding why two or more petitions challenging the same patent are (or are not) warranted. Following the Comcast decision, the USPTO in 2019 released its Trial Practice Guide Update, which provided additional guidance for petitioners filing parallel petitions. The TPG Update indicated that, among other things, two or more petitions filed by a petitioner “should be rare.”
The methodology used to report the updated study’s information has changed compared to previous versions of the study. The Appendix of the study states, “In the updated method, the number of challenges is the number of times one petitioner challenged one patent in a fiscal year, only looking at those challenges that received a decision to institute. The fiscal year is calculated from the decision to institute date unless there was a request for rehearing decision that granted a request for rehearing of a decision denying institution, in which case the date of the request for rehearing was used.” In contrast, the USPTO’s previous methodology calculated the total challenges to a patent by adding the number of serial petitions, parallel petitions, and single petitions for each fiscal year, which led to petitions being counted twice in some cases.
Overall, since the USPTO’s 2019 guidance, petitioners have filed significantly fewer sets of multiple petitions (both in serial and parallel filings). The results of the study will be used to help inform future USPTO reforms, including balancing the need for petitioners to file multiple petitions to make their case against the need for patent owners to be protected from repetitive challenges. The USPTO is also assessing comments from its proposed rulemaking on PTAB practices.
An Executive Summary of the study is available here.
Copyright © 2023 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.
At the PTAB Blog
USPTO Releases Notice of Proposed Rule Making Codifying Several Precedential Case Factors
April 25, 2024
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
April 12, 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.