In
This Issue
· Ongoing Tally of Filed IPR and CBM Petitions
· Recent Refusals To Institute
· Other Matters of Interest at the PTAB
· PTAB Trial Section Judges
Contact Us:
Bruce Stoner,
Chairman, Reexamination and Post-Grant Practice Group
www.gbpatent.com
BStoner@gbpatent.com
703-716-1191 (phone)
703-716-1180 (fax) |
Ongoing
Tally of Filed IPR and CBM Petitions
Since September 16, 2012, 581 petitions have been identified in
the PTAB’s listing of proceedings for inter
partes review (“IPR petitions”) and post grant review against certain
patents directed to covered business methods (“CBM petitions”). During FY 2013 (October 1, 2012
through September 30, 2013), there were 511 IPRs and 45 CBM petitions
filed. During
September, 2013, 72 petitions for IPR and 5 petitions for CBM were filed.
Of the
72 IPR petitions filed in September:
· Ten (10) petitions
were filed targeting patents of Bonutti Skeletal
Innovations, LLC, 6 by Smith & Nephew, Inc., 3 by Arthrex,
Inc. and 1 by Linvatec Corp.;
· Samsung Electronics
Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America Inc., in aggregate, filed 8
petitions, 5 against patents of Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc, 1 against a patent owned by Boston University, and 2
against patents owned by LED Tech Development, LLC.;
· Zoll Lifecor Corp. filed 8
petitions, 5 against patents owned by Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. and 3 against patents owned by Philips Electronics
North America Corporation;
· Sealed Air
Corporation targeted patents owned by Pregis Innovative Packaging Inc. in 5 petitions;
· Microsoft Corp.
targeted patents owned by Enfish, LLC in 5
petitions;
· Baxter Healthcare
targeted patents owned by Millennium Bilogix, LLC
in 4 IPR proceedings; and,
· Yamaha Corp. of
America targeted patents owned by Black Hills Media, LLC in 4 IPR
proceedings.
The 77 total filings in
September were made by 34 filers. Fourteen (14) filers filed multiple petitions, accounting for 57
proceedings.
|
Sep. 2012 |
Oct. 2012 |
Nov. 2012 |
Dec. 2012 |
Jan. 2013 |
Feb. 2013 |
Mar. 2013 |
Apr. 2013 |
May 2013 |
Jun 2013 |
Jul 2013 |
Aug 2013 |
Sep. 2013 |
Totals |
IPR |
17 |
24 |
24 |
31 |
26 |
30 |
38 |
27 |
44 |
65 |
69 |
61 |
72 |
528 |
CBM |
8 |
5 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
7 |
8 |
3 |
9 |
5 |
53 |
TOTALS |
25 |
29 |
26 |
31 |
26 |
30 |
40 |
31 |
51 |
73 |
72 |
70 |
77 |
581 |
Please click here for the latest spreadsheet reflecting
all filings through October 1, 2013.
Thirty (30) proceedings were instituted in September,
bringing the total to 193 proceedings instituted. Three (3) proceedings were denied
institution in September (discussed below), bringing to 29 the number
denied. Nineteen (19) proceedings have
been terminated by settlement, one was terminated based on a patent owner’s
refusal to participate, and one was dismissed.
Recent Refusals
to Institute
The PTAB recently
refused to institute the following proceedings:
- Accord HealthCare,
Inc., USA v. Eli Lilly & Company, Case IPR2013-00356 (October 1, 2013)
(Fitzpatrick, Elluru and Kamholz). The PTAB refused to institute this
proceeding as time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). The PTAB made clear that the one year
time limit to institute an inter
partes review proceeding starts to run from the time the first
complaint is served (where there are multiple actions
instituted). Here, Eli Lilly
served Accord with a district court complaint alleging infringement of
the patent-at-issue on January 23, 2012 and initiated a second civil
action, and served the second complaint, on March 7, 2013. The earlier complaint was served more than
one year before Accord filed the present petition and, thus, 35 U.S.C.
§ 315(b) bars this proceeding.
- Anova Food, LLC v. Sandau,
et al.,
IPR2013-00114 (September 13, 2013) (Medley, Green and
Fitzpatrick). Here, the PTAB
refused to institute the proceeding based on the time-bar of 35 U.S.C. §
315(a)(1) and the conclusion that the instant petitioner and the prior litigant were
the “same entity” for purposes of § 315(a)(1).
- Section 315(a)(1)
bars an inter partes review
if the petitioner or real party in interest filed a civil action challenging
the validity of a claim of the patent before the date on which the
petition for inter parties review has been filed. Here, the Board concluded that Anova LLC did not meet its burden of establishing
that it is not barred under §315(a)(1) from
proceeding with the instant action. Anova Food, Inc. filed – but never served - three
complaints in district court challenging the validity of the ‘401
patent on (i) March 25, 2003; (ii) August 1,
2003; and (iii) March 18, 2004.
- Anova Food LLC first argued that § 315(a)(1) should be interpreted as barring a subsequent
inter partes petition only if the earlier complaint had been “filed and served.” The Board declined to read the
“served” limitation into the statute, finding that the statutory
language was clear on its face, particularly in view of the “served”
requirement recited in § 315(b).
- Anova next argued that Anova Food Inc. and Anova Food LLC were not the
same entity. Patent Owner,
however, asserted, and the Board agreed (after extensive briefing), that Anova Food LLC is a successor to Anova Food, Inc., such that the actions by Anova Inc. may be imputed to Anova LLC and thus bar the instant proceeding under § 315(a)(1). In determining the issue of successor
liability, the Board applied the state law of Florida because it is Anova’s principal place of business. The Board concluded that the
successor corporation was a mere continuation in business of the first
because the two corporations shared the same officers, customers,
products and only switched the new corporate form in the same location.
- ZTE Corporation and
ZTE (USA) Inc. v. ContenGuard Holdings Inc., Case IPR2013-00454 (September 25,
2013) (Lee, Kim, and Zecher). The PTAB refused to institute inter partes review based on
several grounds, citing 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), which permits the Office to
take into account “whether the same prior art or arguments previously
were presented to the Office.” The Board simultaneously refused to join this proceeding to an
earlier proceeding because the earlier proceeding had already terminated
by judgment at the patent owner’s request.
- ZTE filed a prior petition against claims
1-38 of the ‘160 patent, but the Board initiated that proceeding
against only claims 12-22 and 30-38. In the prior proceeding (IPR2013-134), Patent Owner requested
and was granted adverse judgment and ZTE did not file a request for
rehearing.
- The Board declined to permit ZTE to file
yet another petition directed to claims 1-11 and 23-29, given its past
unsuccessful attempt to invalidate these claims. The Board pointed out that the
instant petition was untimely under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (it was outside
the 1 year time period) and the prior proceeding had been terminated
and the motion for joinder to this proceeding was also denied. The Board indicated that it would be
“unjust and inequitable to subject the Patent Owner to a new challenge
by a Petitioner who unsuccessfully had attempted to institute inter partes review on the
claims in a previous petition, if the second petition is not itself
filed within the one-year period provided in 35 U.S.C. §.315(b) and if
a joinder motion has been denied.” Id. at page 5.
- ATAS International,
Inc. v. Centria, IPR2013-00259 (September 24, 2013)
(Medley, Bisk, and Ward). The PTAB declined to institute the inter partes review because it concluded that ATAS did not
satisfy its burden to show, under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), that there is
a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to the ‘834
patent’s single claim. The ‘834
patent is a design patent directed to an ornamental design for a
building panel. In making its
determination, the Board used the “ordinary observer” test to analyze
claim construction and anticipation issues in accordance with Egyptian Goddess, Inv. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In analyzing obviousness, the Board
determined “whether the claimed design would have been obvious to a
designer of ordinary skill who designs articles of the type involved.” Id., at page 7 (quoting Apple, Inc.
v. Samsung Elecs. Col, Ltd., 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Other Matters of
Interest at the PTAB
SAP AMERICA, Inc. v. Versata Development Group, Inc.,
CBM2012-00001, the first AIA post-grant proceeding to progress to oral hearing
and decision, established another first on September 13, 2013 when the panel
(Medley, Tierney and Elluru) denied Versata’s request for rehearing. The opinion (1) refused to address, as
waived, Versata’s arguments asserting that the
subject patent is not a covered business method patent, that claim and issue
preclusion barred review, and that 35 U.S.C. § 101 is not a permissible basis
for review; (2) maintained its reliance on the “broadest reasonable
interpretation” standard as the
appropriate mode of claim construction in inter
partes proceedings and its position that the interpretation applied was
reasonable; and (3) adhered to its position that claims 17 and 26-29 of the
subject patent do not recite patent eligible subject matter.
Motions for joinder
were granted in:
- Sony Corp. of America
and Hewlett-Packard v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00495, (Paper No. 13,
entered September 16, 2013) (Lee, Chang and Arbes),
joining that proceeding with Avaya
Inc. and Dell Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00071,
Dell having previously been joined by way of petition filed in
IPR2013-00385, Paper 17, which latter proceeding, per the Board, was in
turn terminated under 37 CFR 42.72. The order is of interest because of the limited role agreed to by
Sony and Hewlett-Packard, provided that Avaya and Dell do not settle
with the patent owner.
- Sony Corp. v. Yissum Research Development Company of the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, IPR2013-00326 (Paper No. 15, entered September 24, 2013)(Medley, Easthom and Arpin)(attacking
patentability of claims 4, 5 and 34), joining that proceeding with Sony
Corp. v. Yissum Research Development Company
of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem IPR2013-00218 (attacking
patentability of claims 1-3 and 22).
PTAB Trial
Section Judges
Docket assignments continue to show a heavy load of cases
assigned to several experienced inter
partes APJs, as reflected in the list below drawn from the spreadsheet,
but with increasing numbers being assigned to more recently appointed Board
members.. These numbers do not reflect decreases as a result of terminations
or assignment of proceedings to another APJ for authoring an opinion.
APJS Assigned
To Manage Proceedings |
Docket Size as
of 09/30/2013 |
Justin T. Arbes |
41 |
James B. Arpin |
1 |
Jennifer Bisk |
39 |
Joni Y. Chang |
43 |
Josiah C. Cocks |
10 |
Christopher L. Crumbley |
9 |
Karl D. Easthom |
10 |
Rama Elluru |
1 |
Thomas L. Gianetti |
47 |
Lora M. Green |
34 |
Scott E. Kamholz |
26 |
Sally G. Lane |
14 |
Jameson Lee |
99 |
Brian J. McNamara |
55 |
Sally C. Medley |
74 |
Bryan F. Moore |
7 |
Michael P.
Tierney |
40 |
Kevin F. Turner |
7 |
Michael R. Zecher |
20 |
Not yet assigned |
4 |
|