PTAB May Flex its Discretionary Muscle to Deny Duplicative IPR Petitions

Author: James D. Stein
Editor: Michael J. McCabe II

The AIA granted the Board broad discretion to determine how a matter will (or will not) proceed if another matter involving the same patent has been brought before the USPTO, especially where “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments were previously presented to the Office.” See 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).

The Board recently exercised this discretion in an “informative” decision denying an IPR petition in Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR2014-00487, Paper 8 (Sept. 11, 2014). The petitioner had previously filed two IPR petitions challenging the same patent. The Board denied one petition and instituted the other. The petition here admitted that it was “essentially a duplicate” of the denied petition, but contended that it corrected deficiencies, provided new evidence and arguments, and presented grounds that were not redundant to the grounds presented in the instituted petition. The Board rejected petitioner’s arguments based on three key points:

  1. The new petition failed to “provide any specific reasoning” to support the argument that its grounds were not redundant to the grounds in the instituted petition other than stating that “those grounds are based on different prior art references and different arguments”;
  2.  The instituted proceeding involved the same patent and claims, with oral argument already scheduled for November; and
  3. The grounds proposed in the new petition were “nearly identical” to the grounds proposed in the denied petition.

Continue reading

Bookmark and Share
Tagged , ,

PTAB and Discovery: An Insider’s Perspective

Author: Anthony A. Hartmann
Editor: Michael J. McCabe II

Recently, APJs Bonilla and Snedden authored a post on the USPTO AIA Blog entitled “Routine and Additional Discovery in AIA Trial Proceedings: What is the Difference?” Their post provides some meaningful insight into how the PTAB approaches routine and additional discovery and cites numerous decisions that may be useful to practitioners.

The APJs explain that “routine discovery” under Rule 42.51(b)(1)(i) has its limitations. While exhibits cited in a paper or testimony must be produced, no requirement exists for a party to create or provide materials that were not cited. Nor are parties required to produce materials that a party or witness considered in preparing the paper or the testimony.

The APJs note that “routine discovery” under Rule 42.51(b)(1)(ii) requires a party relying on a witness’s testimony by declaration or affidavit to make that witness available for cross-examination. “Normally, the burden and expense of producing a witness for cross-examination falls on the party presenting the witness.”

Continue reading

Bookmark and Share
Tagged , , , , ,

IPR, EPO Opposition and UK Litigation

Author:  Leythem A. Wall
Editor:  Anthony C. Tridico, Ph.D.

We report here on what appears to be one of the first IPR cases to have corresponding validity challenges in other jurisdictions, namely Europe at the European Patent Office (EPO) and in the UK courts. The decisions, despite being the same patent family differ remarkably.

Continue reading

Bookmark and Share
Tagged , , , , , ,