Posts Tagged ‘claims’

PTAB Narrows Its Preliminary Claim Interpretation To Uphold Cellular Patent

Monday, February 13th, 2017

In July, 2014 Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (“Ericsson”) petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 8-12 and 18-22 of U.S. Patent No. 7,787,431 owned by Intellectual Ventures II  LLC (“IV”).  In February, 2015, the Board instituted trial on claims 1 and 2 based on obviousness grounds, but denied institution of obviousness grounds for claims 8-12 and 18-22.  In a final written decision dated January 29, 2016, claims 1 and 2 of the ’431 patent were determined to be unpatentable.  (IPR2014-01195, Paper 37.)

Ericsson filed a second IPR petition in August, 2015, again challenging claims 8-12 and 18-22.  (IPR2015-01664, August 3, 2015.)  Claim 8 is representative:

8. A cellular base station comprising:

circuitry configured to transmit a broadcast channel in an orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA) coreband, wherein the core-band is substantially centered at an operating center frequency and the core-band includes a first plurality of subcarrier groups, wherein each subcarrier group includes a plurality of subcarriers, wherein the core-band is utilized to communicate a primary preamble sufficient to enable radio operations, the primary preamble being a direct sequence in the time domain with a frequency content confined within the core-band or being an OFDM symbol corresponding to a particular frequency pattern within the core-band,

wherein properties of the primary preamble comprise:

an autocorrelation having a large correlation peak with respect to sidelobes;

a cross-correlation with other primary preambles having a small cross-correlation coefficient with respect to power of other primary preambles; and

a small peak-to-average ratio; and

wherein a large number of primary preamble sequences exhibit the properties; and

circuitry configured to transmit control and data channels using a variable band including a second plurality of subcarrier groups, wherein the variable band includes at least the core-band.

In its Institution Decision, the Board provided a preliminary construction of “transmit[ting] a broadcast channel in an orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA) core-band.”  (Institution Decision, p. 11.)  The Board stated: “the plain meaning of transmitting a broadcast channel in a core-band merely requires transmitting some part of the broadcast channel in a core-band and does not exclude transmitting another part of the broadcast channel outside the core-band.” Id.

IV disagreed with the Board’s preliminary construction, asserting that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood the limitation to exclude transmitting any portion of the recited broadcast channel outside of the core-band. (Patent Owner Resp., pp. 35–36.)  According to the Board, Ericsson did not agree with or dispute IV’s assertion, and only asserted that IV’s proposed construction adds no clarity and that no construction is necessary.

In its Final Written Decision, the Board decided that its preliminary construction was unreasonably broad in view of IV’s arguments and its expert’s testimony:

Upon further review of the ’431 patent, particularly in view of Patent Owner’s arguments supported by Dr. Zeger’s testimony discussed above, we are persuaded that our preliminary partial construction was unreasonably broad to the extent that construction indicated the transmitting a broadcast channel limitation would be met by the transmission of a broadcast channel that is only partially within the core-band. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that to show that the transmitting “a broadcast channel in an” OFDMA core-band limitation is met, Petitioner must demonstrate that the prior art teaches or suggests transmitting a broadcast channel, wherein the entire channel is contained within the core-band.

(Final Written Decision, pp. 8-9.)  The Board determined that Ericsson’s prior art combination failed to teach transmitting a broadcast channel in an OFDMA core-band, as recited in independent claims 8 and 18.  The Board found that a particular prior art reference (Yamaura) did transmit in the OFDMA core-band at times, but it did not have sufficient evidence that at other times it did not transmit outside of that band, and therefore it did not teach the recited OFDMA core-band limitation.

Even though the second IPR was instituted for trial on claims 8-12 and 18-22 based on a broad construction of the claims, the claims were not shown to be obvious based on a narrowed interpretation of the claims adopted in the Final Written Decision.

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

Tuesday, 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.

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

Thursday, 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.

 

Are Your Patent Procurement Guidelines Outdated?

Sunday, May 3rd, 2015

 

I saw a bumper sticker that said:  “Change is inevitable, but growth is optional.”  This is true in many facets of life, and it is true for patent practice.  The changes of the past few years are numerous and far-reaching.  Is your patent portfolio strategy growing with these changes?

changes

One Simple Exercise

If you are responsible for your company’s patent portfolio, try this simple exercise:  look at your patent procurement guidelines to find out when they were last updated.  If they were last revised over two years ago, chances are they do not contemplate options like:

  • Track One filings in the USPTO for faster patent examination,
  • steps to use the USPTO’s After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP) program to rapidly resolve pending prosecution, and
  • procedures to improve your future patent filings in order to survive claim challenges from IPRs, CBMs, and PGRs under the America Invents Act.

All of these options provide tools that can issue more meaningful and robust patents for your company and trim your patent portfolio’s bottom line.

Why Are These Tools Important?

Each of these tools can provide strategic advantages for your portfolio, depending on your goals.  For example:

  • Track One filings may be used in a campaign of patent filing to rapidly assemble issued patent rights in a strategic area, to bolster an ongoing enforcement campaign, or to offset expected or pending AIA patent challenges.
  • The after final consideration pilot program (AFCP) can be used to avoid needless and expensive RCE practice and to accelerate issue of valuable claims.
  • Drafting measures that enhance your patents’ ability to survive (or even avoid) AIA patent trials will become increasingly important–especially if Congress passes legislation to moderate post-grant review estoppel.  Your company saves hundreds of thousands of dollars each time your patents avoid an AIA patent trial — not to mention the potential recoveries that the patent brings when it is clear to the challenger that it is valid and infringed.

Act Now

Of course, there are many more tools for your procurement guidelines and the ones listed above are only some examples.  Every business requires different tools and approaches to match the patent practices and opportunities of that industry.

It takes time to assemble a good set of guidelines.  Even after the guidelines are complete, know that procedures to generate better patents can take time to implement.

When asked to audit patent filings for various companies, I was surprised by a pattern of reluctance to adopt new filing practices observed with preparation and prosecution counsel.  I heard various excuses to resist change, such as “we have been drafting claims like this for years.”   That was undoubtedly true prior to the AIA; however, the scrutiny that patents receive in AIA patent trials is substantially different than prior reexamination and litigation proceedings.

AIA post-grant proceedings are not going away any time in the foreseeable future.  Therefore, we are in a new patent enforcement paradigm and patent procurement practices have to change to adapt to this new enforcement paradigm.  Make sure that your patent prosecution practices are updated to generate the most effective rights possible.

[Editor’s Note:  Additional installments on patent preparation and prosecution in light of the AIA will be posted in the future.  Subscribe for updates.]

In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies: Federal Circuit Affirms Board Finding of Unpatentability in First IPR

Thursday, February 5th, 2015

The Federal Circuit affirmed the final determination of the Board in the first inter partes review under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA).   Garmin petitioned for IPR of claims 10, 14 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,778,074 owned by Cuozzo Speed Technologies.  The Board found these claims obvious and denied Cuozzo’s motion to amend the ’074 patent by substituting new claims 21, 22, and 23 for issued claims 10, 14, and 17.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s final determination of obviousness, upheld the Board’s application of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard (BRI), and the Board’s denial of Cuozzo’s motion to amend.

One irony of this case is that Cuozzo challenges the Board’s adoption of BRI as an interpretive standard, yet Cuozzo asserts a construction of the phrase “integrally attached” that is broader than the definition adopted by the Board in the IPR:

Claim 10 includes the following limitation: “a speedometer integrally attached to said colored display.” ’074 patent col. 7 l. 10. Cuozzo argues that the board improper-ly construed the phrase “integrally attached.” The Board construed “integrally attached” as meaning “discrete parts physically joined together as a unit without each part losing its own separate identity.” J.A. 9. Cuozzo contends that the correct construction of “integrally attached” should be broader—“joined or combined to work as a complete unit.” Appellant’s Br. 33. Before the Board, Cuozzo stated that its construction would cover “a display that both functionally and structurally integrates the speedometer and the colored display, such that there only is a single display.” J.A. 10. Cuozzo argues that the Board’s claim construction improperly excludes a single-LCD embodiment of the invention wherein the speedometer and the speed limit indicator are on the same LCD.

Some may be confused by a patent owner who complains of the USPTO’s use of a broader interpretative standard, but simultaneously asserts a broader construction than the USPTO for a phrase.  Cuozzo needed the broader interpretation to argue that its amended claims should have been entered by the Board.   Cuozzo’s amended claims were directed to a particular embodiment of the invention employing a speedometer and speed limit indicator on the same LCD; however, the Board’s interpretation of “integrally attached” excluded that particular embodiment.  The Board relied on its claim construction to deny Cuozzo’s amended claims and the Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s narrower claim construction:

We see no error in the Board’s interpretation. The word “attached” must be given some meaning. As the Board explained, it would “be illogical to regard one unit as being ‘attached’ to itself.” J.A. 9. The specification further supports the Board’s construction that the speedometer and the speed limit are independent—it repeatedly refers to a speed limit indicator independent of any speedometer and states that “the present invention essen-tially comprises a speed limit indicator comprising a speed limit display and an attached speedometer.” ’074 patent col. 2 ll. 52–54. The Board did not err in its claim construction.

The majority opinion (filed by Judge Dyk, and joined by Judge Clevenger) and the dissent (by Judge Newman) reach several additional post-grant topics, which will be discussed in future posts.

PTAB Joinder Practice Update: Board Interprets 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) to Require Party Joinder

Tuesday, September 30th, 2014

Sep. 30, 2014

In at least two decisions last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) interpreted the IPR joinder provision, 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), to preclude a joinder request by an existing party to the proceeding.  The Board had allowed this practice in the past, for example, when a party timely filed its request for joinder with a petition that asserted new grounds of challenging one or more claims of the patent under IPR.  In these most recent decisions, the Board seems to have decided that § 315(c) requires “party joinder.”

In two IPRs styled Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp. (IPR2014-00508 and -00509) the Board provided its rationale for why subsequent IPR petitions by Target could not be joined to the instituted IPR proceedings (IPR2013-00531 and -00533, respectively).  The Decision Denying Motion for Joinder for the -00508 IPR provides this reason (which is referenced by the parallel Decision Denying Motion for Joinder in the -00509 IPR):

The statute does not refer to the joining of a petition. Rather, it refers to the joining of a petitioner (i.e., “any person who properly files a petition . . .”). Id. Further, it refers to the joining of that petitioner “as a party to [the instituted] inter partes review.” Id. Because Target is already a party to the proceeding in IPR2013-00531, Target cannot be joined to IPR2013-00531.

The -00508 IPR Decision included a dissent which summarized prior cases allowing such joinder:

The majority opinion chooses not to address the issues as presented by the parties. Instead, the majority bases its decision to deny the motion entirely on a construction of 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), concluding that the statute enabling joinder does not apply here because it allows only joinder of parties, not joinder of issues. According to the majority, the language in § 315(c) addresses only joinder of a “party” to a proceeding, and does not permit joinder in the situation present in this case, where Petitioner seeks the “joinder” of additional grounds by the same party. The majority opinion acknowledges, however, the Board has consistently allowed joinder of additional grounds by the same party See, e.g., Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd., Case IPR2012-00022 (PTAB Sept. 2, 2014) (Paper 66)(“Ariosa”); Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Virginia Innovation Scis., Inc., Case IPR2014-00557, (PTAB June 13, 2014) (Paper 10); Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., Case IPR2013-00109 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2013) (Paper 15); ABB Inc. v. Roy-G-Biv Corp.,Case IPR2013-00282 (PTAB Aug. 9, 2013) (Paper 15).

As the majority opinion observes, the Board in Ariosa concluded that the language in § 315(c) that allows joinder of “any person who properly joins a petition under section 311” should be construed as not prohibiting the joinder of inter partes review proceedings involving the same party. Here, however, the majority opinion concludes that “the relief described in § 315(c) is something an existing party already has, namely, party status in the instituted inter partes review.” The majority opinion states further in a footnote that

solely focusing upon “any person” does not give full effect to the other words in the statute that limit who “any person” may be. Other language in § 315(c) excludes from “any person” at least two persons from among those who may be joined to a proceeding. More specifically, the phrase “who properly files a petition under section 311” excludes the patent owner, and “as a party,” excludes persons who are already a party.

We note initially that as this issue of statutory construction was not addressed, and thus not briefed, by the parties, the majority should not have denied joinder solely on statutory construction grounds. Apart from and independent of this failure to address the issues presented by the parties, however, we disagree with the majority’s construction of § 315(c), for the reasons discussed below.

Joinder is of particular importance to PTAB practitioners because the AIA imposes strict rules on the timing and content of IPR petition filings to challenge patentability.  It is especially important in IPRs, because a petitioner is barred from filing another petition over a year after service of a complaint alleging infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).  Before the decisions of the past week, a petitioner had one more chance to argue a different ground of challenge in an IPR using § 315(c) joinder.  Although not guaranteed, on occasion the Board had allowed joinder of a later-filed petition by the same petitioner to an instituted proceeding when the later-filed petition met certain conditions of timeliness and where the later-filed petition will not pose an undue delay or burden on the existing proceeding.  This afforded the petitioner one more opportunity to “tune” challenges when the Board granted partial institution of the claims challenged in the instituted IPR after the one-year bar.  It also afforded the petitioner another chance to challenge claims newly added in a parallel litigation after the one-year IPR bar.  Essentially, the former practice gave the petitioner one more opportunity to consolidate challenges in one proceeding.

If the Board follows the recent decisions precluding joinder requests by a party to the proceeding, petitioners will have to be more diligent to challenge every claim that could be possibly asserted in the parallel litigation.  Petitioners will have to continue to be thorough in exploring the best prior art challenges in the original petition and to assert robust grounds of unpatentability that will withstand the Board’s institution decision.  Accordingly, time will tell if last week’s ruling will be the rule for joinder and whether it will result in more IPR petitions to meet these challenges.  After all, in post-grant practice, that which you do not successfully challenge is likely to be harder to challenge later.

SAP’s Cert Petition Denied by Supreme Court in Versata Patent Infringement Suit

Thursday, January 23rd, 2014

In earlier posts, I described the $391 million patent infringement judgment awarded to Versata for SAP’s alleged infringement of US Pat. 6,553,350.  I also detailed SAP’s attempts to avoid the judgment by challenging the ‘350 patent in the first covered business method patent review conducted by the Patent Office under the America Invents Act.  (SAP v. Versata, CBM2012-00001)  SAP prevailed in the CBM proceeding in June 2013, but that was well after the district court judgment and about a month after a decision by the Federal Circuit upholding the damages portion of the judgment.  About two weeks before the CBM decision, SAP had filed a request for rehearing and a request for rehearing en banc in an effort to have the Federal Circuit reconsider its decision.

In light of the CBM decision finding the ‘350 patent claims unpatentable, SAP motioned the Federal Circuit to stay the litigation pending a final decision in the CBM proceeding.  The Federal Circuit denied SAP’s the rehearing requests.  On December 12, 2013, SAP petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court.  In its petition, SAP argued that the district court judgment action should have been stayed by the Federal Circuit in view of the unpatentability of  Versata’s  patent as determined by the Patent Office in the CBM review.

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014, the Supreme Court denied certiorari of SAP’s petition.  The case will return to the district court for its consideration of the vacation of the injunction by the Federal Circuit.  It remains to be seen how the district court will modify the injunction given the CBM decision and whether Versata will be able to collect its $391 million judgment against SAP in view of the Supreme Court’s refusal to take the matter.

Patent Office Board Takes a Bite out of Apple’s IPR Challenge of VirnetX Patents

Thursday, December 19th, 2013

In  mid-2013 Apple filed seven inter partes review petitions to challenge four VirnetX patents.  Recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) denied all seven inter partes review (IPR) petitions.  This outcome demonstrates the Board’s current interpretation of the one-year bar applied in IPR proceedings and its position on joinder of petitions.

Apple’s Interpretation of the One Year Bar

Apple disclosed that its petitions were filed more than a year after service of a complaint asserting infringement of the subject patents, and understood that the petitions might be challenged depending on the Board’s interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (the statute barring IPR petitions filed after certain assertions of infringement):

Petitioner notes it was previously served with a complaint asserting infringement of the ’135 patent in August of 2010, which led to Civil Action No: 6:10-cv-417. During that action, the District Court established an additional civil action, Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00211-LED, on February 26, 2013 (also pending in the Eastern District of Texas). The August 2010 complaint does not foreclose the present petition, as Patent Owner served a new complaint on Petitioner asserting infringement of the ’135 patent in December of 2012.

Apple Inc. v. VirnetX, Inc., et al., IPR2013-00348, Paper 1 (June 12, 2013), at p. 1 (emphasis in original).  Similar disclosures can be found in the other six related petitions:  IPR2013-00349, -354, 393, -394, -397, and -398.

Apple anticipated that the 2010 complaint service might cause a concern and argued that the 315(b) bar should not apply:

Petitioner submits this conclusion [that the petitions are not barred] is compelled by the plain language of § 315(b). Notably, § 315(b) does not specify a one-year deadline that runs from the date of the first complaint served on a petitioner. Rather, it states “[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” Thus, a petition filed within 1 year of the date any complaint alleging infringement of the patent is served on a petitioner is timely under the plain statutory language of § 315(b). This is also the only reading of § 315(b) consistent with the statutory design. Congress designed the IPR authority to be option to contest validity of a patent concurrently with district court proceedings involving the same patent. A timely filed IPR proceeding in any action a patent owner elects to commence is perfectly consistent with this statutory design.

Reading § 315(b) in this manner also is the only way to effectively foreclose gaming of the system by a Patent Owner. Indeed, if § 315(b) were read to foreclose IPR proceedings in a second, independent action for infringement a patent owner elected to commence, it would unfairly foreclose use of the IPR system. For example, a patent owner could assert irrelevant claims in a first action, wait a year, and then assert different claims in a new action that do present risks to a third party. In this scenario, the patent owner would foreclose legitimate use of an IPR to contest validity of the patent claims asserted in the second action based on the third party’s reasonable business decision to not dispute validity of irrelevant claims in the first action. Rather than attempting to decipher which scenarios would be improper, the Board should follow the plain meaning of § 315(b), and find a petition timely if it is filed within 1 year of the date any complaint alleging infringement of the patent is served on a Petitioner.

Finally, reading §315(b) to foreclose this petition based on the August 2010 complaint would be particularly unjust in this case. The 1-year period following service of the August 2010 complaint expired before it was possible to submit an IPR petition – petitions could only be filed on or after September 16, 2012.

Id., Paper 1 at pp. 2-3 (emphasis in original).

But Apple had one more card to play that could avoid the entire issue of the 315(b) bar:  a request for joinder with another IPR proceeding challenging the same patent.

Apple’s Joinder Request

Apple knew that if it could successfully join another IPR proceeding, such joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (and  37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)) would not be subject to the one year bar under the last sentence of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).  Apple filed its Motion for Joinder on August 21, 2013, requesting joinder to IPR proceedings by New Bay Capital, LLC challenging the VirnetX patents:

Pursuant to the authorization granted by the Panel on August 14, 2013 in Paper No. 6, Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Petitioner” or Apple) moves to have the Board join IPR proceedings IPR2013-00348 & -00349 to each other and with IPR proceeding IPR2013-00375 filed by New Bay Capital, LLC (“NBC”), each of which concerns U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135.

Id., Paper 7 at p. 1.

Apple submits that joinder of the proceedings is fully warranted. See IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4; Dell v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00385, Paper 17 at 2-3. Joinder is proper under the statutory design of inter partes review, will simplify and reduce the number of issues before the Board and will enable streamlined proceedings (i.e., one coordinated proceeding instead of three separate proceedings). In addition, the Board can manage the joined proceeding in a way that does not impact scheduling or conduct of the proceedings. See Motorola Mobility LLC v. Softview, LLC, IPR2013-00256, Paper 10 at 2-3.

Id., Paper 7 at p. 3.

So, it seemed like Apple had two independent avenues for potential institution of IPR:  (1) an interpretation of 315(b) that would result in no bar of the petitions, and (2) joinder with ongoing IPR proceedings filed by New Bay Capital, regardless of any potential 315(b) bar.

New Bay Capital Terminates its IPRs

On November 6, 2013, New Bay Capital filed unopposed motions to terminate its IPRs (IPR2013-00375, -376, -377, and -378):

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.73(b)(4) and the Board’s Order of November 1, 2013, Petitioner New Bay Capital, LLC (“New Bay”) moves to terminate the present inter partes review proceeding. Termination is appropriate because New Bay is abandoning this contest, VirnetX does not oppose and a trial has not been instituted.

The Board granted New Bay Capital’s motions and terminated those IPR proceedings on November 12, 2013.

Apple’s IPR Petitions Denied

The Board reviewed the facts of the complaints served on Apple in the past and decided that the 2010 complaint served on Apple barred its IPR petition under 315(b).  The Board also dismissed Apple’s joinder request because the Board had recently terminated the New Bay Capital IPRs:

The timeliness limitation of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) does not apply to a request for joinder. As such, Petitioner filed a motion to join the instant proceeding with another proceeding, IPR2013-00375, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 315(c). See Paper 7 (“Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder of Proceedings”). Granting the motion would obviate the time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315 (b). The IPR2013-00375 proceeding, however, has been terminated. New Bay Capital, LLC v. Virnetx, Inc., IPR2013-00375, Paper 16 (PTAB Nov. 12, 2013). Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for joinder is dismissed.

Id., Paper 14 at p. 5.

So both of Apple’s avenues for institution of trial in these seven IPR petitions were blocked by the Board.

Reconsideration Still an Option

Even though Apple’s seven IPR petitions were denied, Apple still has the right to request reconsideration and it remains to be seen if it will file requests for rehearing.  Such requests have historically proved to be unlikely to be granted.  Other Petitioners have sought additional avenues for institution that will be discussed in a future post.

Joint Motions to Terminate Patent Reviews Late in Trial Proceedings

Friday, December 13th, 2013

One of the advantages of patent reviews under the America Invents Act is that the parties may settle before completion of the proceedings and file a joint motion to terminate these proceedings.  The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) may consider the joint motion and terminate the entire proceeding.  It has done so in several instances.

But the Board has made it clear that when settlement results in a joint motion to terminate,  it has the power to terminate the proceedings with respect to the Petitioner and maintain the proceedings with respect to the Patent Owner.  The statute governing settlement in inter partes reviews is 35 U.S.C. § 317 (a parallel one for post-grant reviews is found in 35 U.S.C. § 327):

§ 317. Settlement

(a) IN GENERAL.—An inter partes review instituted under this chapter shall be terminated with respect to any petitioner upon the joint request of the petitioner and the patent owner, unless the Office has decided the merits of the proceeding before the request for termination is filed. If the inter partes review is terminated with respect to a petitioner under this section, no estoppel under section 315(e) shall attach to the petitioner, or to the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner, on the basis of that petitioner’s institution of that inter partes review. If no petitioner remains in the inter partes review, the Office may terminate the review or proceed to a final written decision under section 318(a).

(b) AGREEMENTS IN WRITING.—Any agreement or understanding between the patent owner and a petitioner, including any collateral agreements referred to in such agreement or understanding, made in connection with, or in contemplation of, the termination of an inter partes review under this section shall be in writing and a true copy of such agreement or understanding shall be filed in the Office before the termination of the inter partes review as between the parties. At the request of a party to the proceeding, the agreement or understanding shall be treated as business confidential information, shall be kept separate from the file of the involved patents, and shall be made available only to Federal Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause.

The emphasized language of the statute refers to termination with respect to a petitioner, and contemplates a situation where no petitioner remains in an inter partes review.  The corresponding PTAB rule governing settlement is 37 C.F.R. § 42.74:

§ 42.74 Settlement.

  • (a) Board role. The parties may agree to settle any issue in a proceeding, but the Board is not a party to the settlement and may independently determine any question of jurisdiction, patentability, or Office practice.
  • (b) Agreements in writing. Any agreement or understanding between the parties made in connection with, or in contemplation of, the termination of a proceeding shall be in writing and a true copy shall be filed with the Board before the termination of the trial.
  • (c) Request to keep separate. A party to a settlement may request that the settlement be treated as business confidential information and be kept separate from the files of an involved patent or application. The request must be filed with the settlement. If a timely request is filed, the settlement shall only be available: (1) To a Government agency on written request to the Board; or (2) To any other person upon written request to the Board to make the settlement agreement available, along with the fee specified in § 42.15(d) and on a showing of good cause.

The emphasized language of the rule is often cited in decisions to terminate where the Board maintains the proceedings with the Patent Owner.

Two recent decisions provide examples where the Board has terminated the proceedings with respect to the Petitioner, but not with the Patent Owner:

  • In CBM2012-00007 the Board decided to maintain the proceedings with the  Patent Owner despite terminating the Petitioner’s involvement.  Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC, CBM2012-00007, Paper 47 (November 12, 2013).  In this CBM, the matter was “fully briefed” and ready for oral hearing when the parties informed the Board of impending settlement.  The Patent Owner also identified ongoing litigation.
  • In IPR2013-00016 the Board terminated the Petitioner’s involvement, but maintained the proceeding with the Patent Owner.   Blackberry Corp. and Blackberry Limited v. MobileMedia Ideas, LLC, IPR2013-00016, Paper 31 (December 11, 2013).  In this IPR, the Patent Owner did not file a Patent Owner’s Response, but instead filed a motion to amend the challenged patent with claim amendments.  The Board found that “the trial issues had been fully briefed at the time the parties moved to terminate the proceeding.”

This aspect of PTAB practice is entirely different than reexamination practice, and can be used to the advantage of both Petitioner and Patent Owner, depending on the circumstances of each case.

CLE Event: Review of First Year of Patent Office Trials

Wednesday, December 11th, 2013

The America Invents Act provides us several new ways to challenge issued patents. If you are curious about what we have learned in this first year fourteen months of patent office trials, please tune into my hour webinar tomorrow morning (Dec. 12, 2013) at 9 a.m. central. I will be co-presenting with Steve Schaefer of Fish & Richardson.  The hour will provide a review of inter partes review and covered business method review, observations and trends, notable decisions, and a discussion of discovery in these PTAB proceedings.

More information and registration details can be found at:  http://www.minncle.org/seminardetail.aspx?ID=120851401