IPR petitioners Proppant Express Investments, LLC and Proppant Express Solutions, LLC (collectively, “PropX”) have a pending instituted inter partes review (IPR) on certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,511,929 (“the ’929 patent”). Unfortunately for PropX, it mistakenly grouped its arguments against one of the dependent claims—claim 4—into the wrong ground, which led the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) to deny institution of IPR of that claim, due to inadequate support. IPR2017-02103, Paper 19 at 32, 34. After institution, PropX sought to amend the petition to move claim 4 into the proper ground. The Board denied PropX’s request because PropX was not diligent: despite Patent Owner’s (“Oren”) Preliminary Response pointing out PropX’s mistake, PropX failed to notice the mistake until after institution. IPR2017-02103, Paper 22.
Continue Reading PTAB Holds that 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) Prevents Same-Party Joinder of Issues to An Instituted IPR
institution decision
Recent PTAB Rulings Reflect Greater Scrutiny Of Product-Label Prior Art
By Bryan D. Beel on
Drug product labels (also known as prescribing information) are often asserted as prior art by patent challengers, both in front of the PTAB and in district court ANDA litigation. Before the PTAB, using such prior art requires showing that it qualifies as a “printed publication” under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 311(b). Recently, the PTAB appears to be applying greater scrutiny to the use of such prior art when cited in invalidity grounds. The Board’s analysis in such situations “involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” Sandoz Inc. v. AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd., IPR2018-00156, Paper 11 at *9 (June 5, 2018) (citing In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). A pair of recent rulings identify some of the evidentiary issues catching the eyes of PTAB panels as they consider invalidity arguments that rely on product-label prior art.
…
Continue Reading Recent PTAB Rulings Reflect Greater Scrutiny Of Product-Label Prior Art
Supreme Court holds that when PTAB institutes an inter partes review, it must decide patentability of all challenged claims
By Emily J. Greb on
On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) must address all challenged claims of an instituted Petition in a final written decision. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, Dir. U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., No. 16-969, slip op. (U.S. Apr. 24, 2018). By way of background, in its Petition for inter partes review (“IPR”), SAS sought review of all the claims of ComplementSoft’s software patent. During the IPR proceedings, the PTAB instituted review on some of the claims, relying on a Patent Office regulation that allowed for “partial institution.” The PTAB held seven of those claims unpatentable and confirmed the patentability of one claim. SAS argued to the Federal Circuit on appeal that the patent statute required the PTAB to address all challenged claims in its final written decision. The Federal Circuit rejected that argument and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Federal Circuit and held that all challenged claims must be addressed in an instituted IPR’s final written decision. Id.
…
Continue Reading Supreme Court holds that when PTAB institutes an inter partes review, it must decide patentability of all challenged claims