Posts Tagged: "discretionary denial"

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) responded last week to a petition for certiorari that is asking the Supreme Court to overturn a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision that said appellate review of whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) discretionary denial rules for inter partes review (IPR) are “arbitrary and capricious” is precluded by Section 314(d) of the patent statute.

Between the precedential Fintiv decision in March of 2020 and Director Vidal’s Guidance Memo regarding the application of Fintiv in June of 2022, the discretionary denial rates of inter partes review (IPR) institution decisions under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) plummeted from 40-50% to 11-16%. Coupled with the order issued by the Chief Judge of the Western District of Texas in July of 2022 declaring that all new patent cases filed in the Waco Division will be randomly assigned among the 12 judges in the district, the substantial decline in denials based on Fintiv in 2022 was not surprising. Now, amid speculations that Fintiv denial rates will increase once again, the USPTO recently announced a set of proposed rules on discretionary denial practice in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM).

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) indicating it is considering changes to America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Perhaps most notably, one of the proposals it is asking for input on has to do with creating rules that would authorize discretionary denial of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings “to ensure that certain for-profit, non-competitive entities do not use the IPR and PGR processes in ways that do not advance the mission and vision of the USPTO to promote innovation or the intent behind the AIA to improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs.”

On March 30, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal issued a decision on sua sponte Director review that vacated a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which had previously denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings brought by semiconductor company Wolfspeed. In her latest in a series of sua sponte decisions, Director Vidal ruled that the PTAB erred in determining that prior art asserted by Wolfspeed was essentially the same as other prior art asserted against the same Purdue University patent claims in previous IPR proceedings that were also denied institution by the PTAB.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal today issued a second Director Review decision correcting the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on its approach to the “compelling merits” analysis outlined in her June 2022 Guidance Memo. In AviaGames, Inc. v. Skillz Platform, Inc., IPR2022-00530, Vidal vacated the PTAB’s denial of AviaGames’ petition to institute IPR of certain claims of Skillz’s U.S. Patent 9,479,602 B1. She explained that the Board’s determination to deny the petition following a Fintiv analysis was improperly based on the district court’s judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101, since that is “a statutory ground that could not have been raised before the Board” and “does not raise concerns of inefficient duplication of efforts or potentially inconsistent results between the Board and the district court.”

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal yesterday issued a precedential Director Review decision clarifying that her June 2022 “compelling merits” memo was not meant to replace the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) analysis under Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc. In IPR2022-01242, the PTAB instituted inter partes review (IPR) without exercising its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), citing Vidal’s “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation.” In that memo, Vidal said that the PTAB “will not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv (i) when a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability; (ii) when a request for denial under Fintiv is based on a parallel ITC proceeding; or (iii) where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.”

Yesterday, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal issued a precedential sua sponte Director Review Decision in Code200, UAB v. Bright Data, Ltd., IPR2022-00861 and IPR2022-00862 Paper 18 (Aug. 23, 2022), clarifying the application of Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) in denying decisions to institute inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of the two IPRs on July 25, 2022, explaining that the General Plastic factors weighed in favor of denial. Specifically, addressing Factor 1, which asks “whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to the same claims of the same patent,” the PTAB said that the fact the Board had not evaluated the similar patentability challenges brought by the petitioner on the merits did not outweigh the petitioner’s failure to offer a stipulation agreeing not to raise the grounds asserted in the present IPRs in related district court litigation as per Sand Revolution II IPR2019-01393.

In August, Apple, Google, Cisco and Intel filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in the Northern District of California challenging the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) adoption of the NHK-Fintiv discretionary denial framework as procedurally invalid under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and arguing that the PTAB’s application of them violates the America Invents Act (AIA). Shortly after, a number of “Small Business Inventors” (US Inventor; 360 Heros, Inc.; Larry Golden; World Source Enterprises, LLC; Dareltech LLC; Tinnus Enterprises, LLC; Clearplay, Inc.; and E-Watch, Inc.) filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Intervene and related Complaint in the case. Now, US Inventor has filed its reply brief, in which it contends that “AIA trial reviews have stifled innovation, crushed inventor morale, and created a lopsided process whose use alone (irrespective of individual merits) can destroy innovative businesses”. The organization is asking the court to enter a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in order to preserve “the one lifeline giving any hope of escaping this ongoing catastrophe for American innovation and fair competition.”

On September 16, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of Mylan Labs Ltd.’s petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 9,439,906 (“the ’906 patent”) in IPR2020-00440.  In doing so, the PTAB exercised discretion to deny institution based on the six factors set forth in its precedential order in Apple Inc. v Fintiv Inc. For Hatch-Waxman Defendants interested in challenging the validity of Orange Book-listed patents at the PTAB, IPR petitions should be filed as early as possible in order to avoid this same result.