Supreme Court’s Stryker/Halo Decision Makes it Easier for Courts to Award Enhanced Damages In Patent Infringement Cases

June 14th, 2016

The recent Supreme Court decisions in the Stryker and Halo cases just made it easier for courts to award enhanced damages in patent infringement cases, discarding Seagate’s “objective recklessness” test.

The Seagate Test

In 2007, the Federal Circuit announced a test for enhanced damages whereby a plaintiff seeking enhanced damages had to show that the infringement of his patent was “willful.”  In re Seagate Technology, LLC,  497 F. 3d, 1360, 1371.  The Federal Circuit set forth a two-part test to establish such willfulness: First, “a patentee must show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent,” without regard to “[t]he state of mind of the accused infringer.” Id., at 1371. This objectively defined risk is to be“determined by the record developed in the infringement proceedings.” Ibid. “Objective recklessness will not be found” at this first step if the accused infringer, during the infringement proceedings, “raised a ‘substantial question’ as to the validity or noninfringement of the patent.” That bar applied even if the defendant was unaware of the arguable defense when he acted.

Second, after establishing objective recklessness, a patentee had to show by clear and convincing evidence the risk of infringement “was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.” Seagate, 497 F. 3d, at 1371. Only when both steps were satisfied could the district court proceed to consider whether to exercise its discretion to award enhanced damages. Ibid. 

Stryker / Halo Decisions Restore Courts’ Discretion to Award Enhanced Damages

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Stryker and Halo cases discarded the Seagate test and restored courts’ discretion to award enhanced damages.  The Court held “[t]he Seagate test is not consistent with §284.”  The relevant language of § 284 contains “no explicit limit or condition on when enhanced damages are appropriate, and this Court has emphasized that the “word ‘may’ clearly connotes discretion.”  So the Court found no explicit requirement for Seagate’s “objective recklessness” test.

The Court also found Seagate unnecessarily required a finding of “objective recklessness” even when wrongdoing was demonstrated by the facts of a case.  The Court also disagreed with Seagate’s requirement of a “clear and convincing evidence” standard for showing recklessness, and held that the proper standard for enhanced damages was a “preponderance of the evidence” — the same standard as for patent infringement determinations.

The Court explained that its decision did not contradict § 298, that failure to present advice to the court may not be used to prove willful infringement:

Section 298 provides that “[t]he failure of an infringer to obtain the advice of counsel” or “the failure of the infringer to present such adviceto the court or jury, may not be used to prove that the accused infringer willfully infringed.” 35 U.S.C. § 298. Respondents contend that the reference to willfulness reflects an endorsement of Seagate’s willfulness test. But willfulness has always been a part of patent law, before and after Seagate. Section 298 does not show that Congress ratified Seagate’s particular conception of willfulness. Rather, it simply addressed the fallout from the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Underwater Devices Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 717 F. 2d 1380 (1983), which had imposed an “affirmative duty” to obtain advice of counsel prior to initiating any possible infringing activity, id., at 1389–1390. See, e.g., H. R. Rep. No. 112–98, pt. 1, p. 53 (2011).

Consequently, nine years after Seagate, the Supreme Court has made it easier for courts to make a determination of enhanced damages.  Time will tell if this decision will spur additional patent opinion practice, such as prior to the 2007 Seagate decision.

PTAB Relies on the Federal Circuit’s Recent § 101 Decision to Deny CBM Institution

June 6th, 2016

On May 12, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued a decision on 101 patent eligibility  that overturned a summary judgment finding of § 101 invalidity for software used for databases.  Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2015-1244, 2016 WL 2756266 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016).  The Enfish v. Microsoft decision interpreted the “abstract idea” first prong of patent eligibility under the Mayo/Alice line of cases.  It reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgement based on § 101, finding that the data storage and retrieval system for a computer memory recited by five claims on appeal of U.S. Pat. No. 6,151,604 were patent-eligible.

Two weeks later, in a CBM review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution on the reviewed claims of U.S. Pat. No. 6,006,227 on § 101, referencing Enfish v. Microsoft.  Apple v. Mirror World Technologies, CBM2016-00019, Paper 12, May 26, 2016.  Mirror World’s ‘227 patent covers a “Document Stream Operating System,” as represented by claim 13:

13. A method which organizes each data unit received by or generated by a computer system, comprising the steps of:

generating a main stream of data units and at least one substream, the main stream for receiving each data unit received by or generated by the computer system, and each substream for containing data units only from the main stream;

receiving data units from other computer systems;

generating data units in the computer system;

selecting a timestamp to identify each data unit;

associating each data unit with at least one chronological indicator having the respective timestamp;

including each data unit according to the timestamp in the respective chronological indicator in at least the main stream; and

maintaining at least the main stream and the substreams as persistent streams.

The Board determined that the ‘227 was a covered business method patent eligible for review under AIA § 18, but that the claims do not recite an abstract idea.  The Board based its decision on a number of reasons, including:

  • Patent Owner demonstrated that the claims recite a solution to a problem that is “necessarily rooted in computer technology,”
  • Patent Owner identified a number of problems solved by the claimed invention that did not exist in the pre-computer world, and
  • The Board was persuaded by Patent Owner’s assertion that the claims cannot be performed entirely by the human mind or with pen or paper, and that certain steps of the claims specifically call for operations that must be performed by a computer.

The Board then relied on this excerpt from Enfish:

We do not read Alice to broadly hold that all improvements in computer-related technology are inherently abstract and, therefore, must be considered at step two. Indeed, some improvements in computer-related technology when appropriately claimed are undoubtedly not abstract, such as a chip architecture, an LED display, and the like. Nor do we think that claims directed to software, as opposed to hardware, are inherently abstract and therefore only properly analyzed at the second step of the Alice analysis. Software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements can, and sometimes the improvements can be accomplished through either route. We thus see no reason to conclude that all claims directed to improvements in computer-related technology, including those directed to software, are abstract and necessarily analyzed at the second step of Alice, nor do we believe that Alice so directs. Therefore, we find it relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea, even at the first step of the Alice analysis.

Decision at p. 16 citing Enfish v. Microsoft at *4,  (emphasis added).

The Board concluded that the first prong of the Mayo/Alice test was not met.  The Board also went on to find that the second prong of the Mayo/Alice test was not met, noting DDR Holdings.  Consequently, the Board issued its order denying CBMR.

As noted in earlier posts, the Board has been known to rapidly adopt decisions from the courts, and this case demonstrates the velocity at which decisions are integrated into practice before the Board.

PTAB Trials Rule Package Library

May 23rd, 2016

Some of you have requested a collection of the rule packages from the PTAB.  Click on the link below for each document:

A – Umbrella Admin Trial Rules (Final Rule 2012)

B – IPR, PGR and CBM (Final Rule 2012)

C – CBM Definition (Final Rule 2012)

D – Office Patent Trial Practice Guide (Final Rule 2012 version)

E – PTO Rule Change to Kill 9 Month IPR Deadzone (Final Rule 2013)

F – AIA Technical Corrections Act (2013)

G – PTAB Quick Fix (2015)

H – Amendments to PTAB Rules (Eff. May 2, 2016)

I – Correction to 2016 PTAB Rules

PTAB Designations for Opinions (2016) 

New PTAB Trial Practice Rules Effective May 2, 2016

May 23rd, 2016

On April 1, 2016 the PTO published its final rule on Amendments to the Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  A small correction to these Amendments was published on April 27.  I presented a summary of these rule changes at the AIPLA Spring Meeting in Minneapolis, MN on May 18, 2016.  The slides from my presentation are attached.

The comments in the final rule make it clear that the PTAB will be publishing an updated Office Patent Trial Practice Guide to address these new rules and changes in practice since publication of the first Office Patent Trial Practice Guide.

Federal Circuit Employs Phillips Claim Construction to Measure Claims Amended in Reexamination for Possible Intervening Rights

February 22nd, 2016

When patent owners sue an accused infringer for patent infringement, one way for the accused infringer to avoid liability is to show noninfringement of the patent claims.  But if the claims are extremely broad, the accused infringer may find it difficult to prove noninfringement and instead may have to rely on a showing of invalidity to avoid liability.  However, a showing of invalidity requires clear and convincing evidence, which is a high standard.  Enter post-grant proceedings, which provide the petitioner (or “requester,” when employing reexamination) a lower evidence standard for patent challenges.

Should the patent be subject to review under post-grant proceedings, the patent owner will likely want to avoid amendment if possible, because amendment that results in substantive changes to the claimed invention can trigger intervening rights, which may provide some reduction of infringement liability for the accused infringer should the claim be substantively narrowed in the post-grant proceeding.  Stakeholders want to know how to determine substantive amendment, triggering intervening rights.  For example, is substantive amendment to be measured by the claim construction standard typically used in the post-grant proceeding (currently “broadest reasonable interpretation,” but pending review by the Supreme Court in Cuozzo), or the claim construction standard used in district court (Phillips)?  The Federal Circuit recently addressed this question when considering amendments made in reexamination for using the Phillips standard in Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp. (Fed. Cir., 2014-1732, Feb. 10, 2016).

Convolve sued Compaq and others in 2000 for infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 6,314,473 relating to minimization of vibrations of a disk drive for quieter operation.  Convolve’s patent ultimately was reexamined and in 2008 certain words were added to the claims during the reexamination.  The court considered whether the amended claims were substantively identical to decide if intervening rights would apply:

“A patentee of a patent that survives reexamination is only entitled to infringement damages for the time period between the date of issuance of the original claims and the date of the reexamined claims if the original and the reexamined claims are ‘substantially identical.’” R & L Carriers, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., [ ]. “[I]t is the scope of the claim that must be identical, not that identical words must be used.” Slimfold Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., [ ]. As a result, amendments made during reexamination do not necessarily compel a conclusion that the scope of the claims has been substantively changed. [ ] This is true even where the claims at issue were amended during reexamination after a rejection based on prior art. Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., [ ] Rather, “[t]o determine whether a claim change is substantive it is necessary to analyze the claims of the original and the reexamined patents in light of the particular facts, including the prior art, the prosecution history, other claims, and any other pertinent information.” Laitram[ ].

Accordingly, the Federal Circuit employed a Phillips standard when reviewing the claim amendments:

In determining the scope of the claims, we apply the traditional claim construction principles of Phillips v. AWH Corp.,[ ] (en banc), paying particular attention to the “examiner’s focus in allowing the claims” after amendment. R & L Carriers [ ]; see also Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., [ ] (When an amendment is made during the reexamination proceedings to overcome a prior art rejection, that is a “highly influential piece of prosecution history.”).

In one example, the original claims recited “acoustic noise,” but were amended in reexamination to “seek acoustic noise.”  The issue that the Federal Circuit considered is whether this narrowing was a substantive amendment for purposes of its intervening rights analysis.  It could have been deemed the amendment to have been a substantive change, because other types of motor noises could have been ruled out by the amendment, but instead the court considered:

  • the specification, which focused on the seek process and the noise it generates;
  • the claims, which relate “acoustic noise” to the seek time and seek process; and
  • the original prosecution history of the patent, where the patent owner argued that the reason for the amendment.

It concluded:

On their face, the original claims recite only “acoustic noise,” which could encompass any manner of acoustic noise, including that generated from the spindle. But when read in conjunction with the remaining claim limitations and in light of the specification and prosecution history, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claims to be limited to seek acoustic noise.

Consequently, the Federal Circuit decided the claim amendments resulted in substantively identical claims before and after amendment, and therefore intervening rights do not apply:

In sum, we conclude that the addition of the term “seek” before “acoustic noise” did not alter the scope of the claim.  [] Here, the language of the claims, read in light of the specification and prosecution history, especially the applicant’s 2001 remarks and amendment, compel a conclusion that the claims as originally drafted were limited to seek acoustic noise despite the lack of an express recitation in the claims.

The Federal Circuit reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement based on the lower court’s determination that liability was precluded by intervening rights.

The Federal Circuit concluded that the claim scope prior to the amendment would have been interpreted to be the same as the scope after amendment using a Phillips construction based on the specification, claims, and prosecution history.  Had the court instead relied upon the broadest reasonable interpretation from reexamination as its gauge, the claims would presumably have been deemed substantively different and the district court summary judgment would have been affirmed.  Convolve allows patent owners an opportunity to avoid intervening rights when amended claims would obtain the same Phillips claim construction as the claims prior to amendment.

 

IPRs And Settlement of Patent Infringement Cases

February 14th, 2016

The passage of the AIA is still relatively recent, yet statistics are starting to emerge that demonstrate the effective use of IPRs to settle patent infringement cases.  IAM magazine recently published an interesting report by Unified Patents showing that IPRs have the effect of increasing the median time to settle litigations (from 211 to 420 days), but when viewed from the time that the first IPR filing is made, the median time of the “adjusted duration” (163 days) is shorter than the median time for litigations without IPRs (211 days):

For the 15,000 cases filed between 2012 and 2014 that settled before the end of 2015, the median duration was around 211 days. By contrast, for the much smaller subset of 1,100 cases which were identified as related matters to at least one inter partes review proceeding, the median overall duration was 420 days.

At first glance, this result seems counter-intuitive and contrary to the America Invents Act’s efficiency and cost-saving goals. However, a closer look at this subset of 1,100 related matters reveals that most settled within 180 days of the earliest inter partes review filing date. Specifically, the median adjusted duration for these cases was 163 days as of the end of 2015.

This timing data demonstrates that settlement is statistically likely before an institution decision is made (which can take place as late as 6 months after the filing date of the petition).  The report offers a few explanations for the observed data:

One explanation for the increase in pre-institution settlements may be that settling the dispute earlier allows patent owners to eliminate the risk that an adverse decision could be used as grounds for institution in a later case. [ ]

A second explanation may be that defendant petitioners have an increased incentive to settle claims before institution due to the low rate of institution – although this seems less likely.

Other potential reasons why IPRs encourage settlement include:

  • Weak patent assertions are more likely to attract IPR petitions by defendants.
    • Well-educated defendant petitioners are incentivized to file IPR petitions to combat weak patents.
    • As long as there is an inexpensive validity challenge option, weak patent assertions are inherently easier to settle than cases involving strong patents.
  • IPR filings quickly inform the parties about the strengths and weaknesses of each other’s case.
    • Strong IPR petitions educate the patent owner about any potential weaknesses of the challenged patent.
    • Weak IPR petitions inform the patent owner about the weakness of the publication prior art.
    • Expectations of each party will converge more quickly if they learn more about their case early in the patent contest.
  • IPRs require the parties to communicate relatively early in a patent assertion.  These communications provide more opportunities for the parties to understand their case and to discuss and settle the dispute.

Those active in post-grant proceedings know that IPRs also provide a limited mechanism for settlement before the IPR petition is filed.  Of course, it is difficult to account for settlements that occur before an IPR petition is filed, but pre-filing settlements were discussed in an earlier post, and will be part of a half hour presentation I will be making for Patexia’s webinar series on March 24, 2016: “Posturing IPRs for Early Settlement.”  More information about that seminar can be found by clicking on this link.

Federal Circuit Reinforces PTAB’s Authority to Institute Trial on Selected Claims in Synopsis v. Mentor Graphics Appeal

February 11th, 2016

Newcomers to post-grant proceedings are often surprised by the PTAB’s claim-by-claim approach to patent challenges under the America Invents Act.  When reporting statistics about IPRs, commentators tend to ignore these considerations:

  • First, an IPR petition can be drafted to challenge all or some of the claims of a patent.  So the set of challenged claims can be less than the set of issued patent claims.
  • Second, if the PTAB decides to institute trial, it will exercise its authority to identify exactly which claims it will institute for trial.
  • Third, of the claims instituted for trial, should the case result in a final written decision, all or some of those claims may be found unpatentable and any remaining claims may pass through the process unscathed.

A recent Federal Circuit majority opinion reinforced the PTAB’s interpretation that the AIA gave it authority to institute trial on less than all of the challenged claims.  In Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics the majority found that the PTAB could exercise its authority to institute trial on a subset of the challenged claims and to enter its final written decision on the instituted claims.  (Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics v. Lee,  Fed. Cir., 2014-1516, 2/10/16).  Synopsis argued that the AIA required the PTAB to provide a patentability determination of every challenged claim.  But the Federal Circuit disagreed, finding instead that the PTAB need only issue its final written decision on the claims instituted for challenge.

Judge Pauline Newman dissented, arguing that the PTAB’s interpretation it is contrary to the AIA and to the AIA’s purpose to provide an alternative and efficient forum for resolving patent validity issues, and that it leads to duplicative proceedings in the PTAB and the district courts.  Her interpretation of the AIA urges a final written decision for each of the claims challenged.  However, absent a petition for cert, the PTAB’s institution and final written practices will not be reversed any time soon based on Synopsis.

 

Patent Trends to Watch in 2016

January 29th, 2016

2016 is starting off with a bang!  A number of interesting new developments have occurred as we enter into this new year:

AIA 2015 Stats

 

So we will monitor practices by the courts, the PTAB, stakeholders, and patent practitioners to observe the effects and interplay of these decisions and actions over the course of the year.  In particular, it will be interesting to see how the Board and the courts handle claim construction issues knowing that BRI may be revised by the Supreme Court.  Also of great interest is how parallel patent infringement trials will be impacted by the PTAB proceedings on the underlying patents.

 

Board Guidance on its View of Petitioner Estoppel: Westlake Services v. Credit Acceptance Corp:

July 21st, 2015
July 21, 2015

Last week, the Board provided an opinion to offer guidance on its view of the scope of petitioner estoppel.  The Westlake Services v. Credit Acceptance Corp. decision relates to the scope of estoppel to a Petitioner following a final written decision from a first petition.  Westlake Services v. Credit Acceptance Corp., CBM2014-00176, Paper 28 (PTAB May 14, 2015). 

This case addresses the question of the scope of Petitioner estoppel when only part of the claims in a CBM proceeding are instituted for trial.  In short, the first petition set forth grounds to challenge the patentability of all claims of U.S. Pat. 6,950,807.  Only some claims were instituted for trial.  Later, the Petitioner filed another petition to challenge claims that were not instituted for trial in the first proceeding.  A final written decision was issued by the Board in the first proceeding finding the instituted claims unpatentable under § 101, and the Patent Owner sought to block the second petition based on petitioner estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1):

The petitioner in a post-grant review of a claim in a patent under this chapter that results in a final written decision under section 328(a), or the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner, may not request or maintain a proceeding before the Office with respect to that claim on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that post-grant review.

The Patent Owner obtained permission to brief the Board with its reasons why the Petitioner was estopped from filing the second petition.  The Patent Owner argued that § 328(a), provides “[i]f a post-grant review is instituted and not dismissed under this chapter, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner.”  In this case the Patent Owner wanted estoppel to apply to all claims to prevent Petitioner from coming back for a second bite on the claims that were not instituted for trial.  After all, the petition was trying to challenge every claim of the patent and the Board did not institute on several claims.  So the Patent Owner relied on this language to assert that the estoppel arising from the Final Written Decision applied to all claims.

Here is the Patent Owner’s logical syllogism:

A.  The Petition challenged all claims.

B.  § 328(a) provides a Final Written Decision is with respect to “any patent claim challenged by the petitioner.”

C.  Therefore, the Final Written Decision applies to all claims, even though institution was only to a subset of the claims.

D.  § 325(e) provides estoppel to all claims because the Final Written Decision is to all claims in (C) above.

E.  Accordingly, Petitioner is estopped from challenging all claims.

The Board denied the Patent Owner’s logic.  Essentially, it determined that § 328(a) and § 325(e) apply on a claim-by-claim basis, and therefore estoppel applies only to the claims instituted for trial.  The Board wanted to clarify estoppel applies only to a claim in a patent that “results in a final written decision” under § 328(a).  So the Board’s logic is different:

A.  The Petition challenged all claims.

B.  Trial was instituted to only some claims.

C.  The Final Written Decision under § 328(a) is only to the instituted claims.

D.  § 325(e) provides estoppel to “a claim in a patent” that “results in a final written decision” under § 328(a), therefore estoppel is only to the instituted claims.

E.  Accordingly, Petitioner is estopped from challenging the instituted claims.

The Board’s guidance about the scope of estoppel allows all parties to make informed decisions about how to better litigate their cases.

Board Limits Multiple IPR Challenges in Samsung Electronics v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies

June 22nd, 2015

June 22, 2015

Rembrandt Wireless Technologies sued Samsung and Research in Motion for infringement of  U.S. Patent 8,457,228 in June 2013.  The ‘228 patent relates to data communications, and in particular to a data communication system in which a plurality of modems use different types of modulation in a network.

In June of 2014, Samsung filed six IPR petitions to challenge various claims of the ’228 patent.  (IPR2014-00889 to -00893 and -00895.)   Only half of Samsung’s six petitions were instituted for trial, but claim 21 was the only claim of the ’228 patent in the district court litigation that was not instituted for trial in the PTAB.  (Rembrandt also asserted U.S. Patent 8,023,580, which was also the subject of six IPR petitions, and had additional claims not instituted for trial.)

In the original IPR challenge of claim 21 (IPR2014-00892), Samsung unsuccessfully asserted a combination of “admitted prior art” (“APA”) with U.S. Patent 5,706,428 (“Boer”).  Samsung filed another IPR petition in January 2015 with a motion for joinder to IPR2014-00892 proposing new grounds for the unpatentability of claim 21.  (IPR2015-00555.)  These new grounds combined a new reference, U.S. Patent 5,537,398 (“Siwiak”), to the originally asserted prior art.  But on June 19, 2015, the Board again denied institution of trial of claim 21 and without considering Siwiak:

We do not reach the merits of Petitioner’s additional reasoning in the instant Petition as to why Petitioner asserts that the subject matter of claim 21 would have been obvious over the combination of APA, Boer, and Siwiak. Instead, for the reasons discussed below, we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution of inter partes review in this proceeding.

35 U.S.C. § 325(d) states:

In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under . . . chapter 31, the Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.

To reject the second IPR petition, the Board integrated § 325(d) with 37 C.F.R.  § 42.1(b):  “[37 C.F.R. § 42] shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.”  The Board explained its denial of the petition:

Petitioner [ ] presents no argument or evidence that Siwiak was not known or available to it at the time of filing IPR ’892. In fact, Petitioner applied Siwiak in proposed grounds of rejection against claim 21 of the ’228 patent in another petition filed the same day as that in the IPR ’892 proceeding. See IPR2014-00889, Paper 2 at 58–60.  On this record, we exercise our discretion and “reject the petition” because “the same or substantially the same prior art” previously was “presented to the Office” in the IPR ’892 proceeding. [cites omitted]

Petitioner is requesting, essentially, a second chance to challenge the claims. We, however, are not persuaded that a second chance would help “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Permitting second chances in cases like this one ties up the Board’s limited resources; we must be mindful not only of this proceeding, but of “every proceeding.”  [cites omitted]

In this proceeding, however, we are not apprised of a reason that merits a second chance. Petitioner simply presents arguments now that it could have made in IPR ’892, had it merely chosen to do so.  In view of the foregoing, and especially in light of the fact that, barring joinder, this petition is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), we exercise our discretion [to deny the petition].

To conserve its limited resources, the Board must be more selective in petitions it will consider.  Petitioners must provide reasons why the Board should consider new grounds proffered in a subsequent petition, including why the new grounds could not have been presented in an earlier-filed petition.