1 / 23

EMERGING TRENDS IN INTER PARTES REVIEW PRACTICE

EMERGING TRENDS IN INTER PARTES REVIEW PRACTICE. TOM ENGELLENNER Pepper Hamilton, LLP IP in Japan Committee Meeting AIPLA Annual Meeting, Washington D.C. October, 2013. Emerging Trends in Inter Partes Review. New mechanisms for challenging patents under the AIA

fordon
Download Presentation

EMERGING TRENDS IN INTER PARTES REVIEW PRACTICE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EMERGING TRENDS IN INTER PARTES REVIEW PRACTICE TOM ENGELLENNERPepper Hamilton, LLP IP in Japan Committee MeetingAIPLA Annual Meeting, Washington D.C. October, 2013

  2. Emerging Trends in Inter Partes Review • New mechanisms for challenging patents under the AIA • Key features of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings • Some statistics for the first year of IPR availability • Exemplary cases

  3. The Post-AIA World

  4. The America Invents Act • The America Invents Act (AIA) established several new mechanisms for challenging issued U.S. Patents: • Inter partes review • Post grant review • Cover business method review • Derivation proceedings • All of these new proceedings are conducted before a new “Patent Trial and Appeal Board.”

  5. The America Invents Act

  6. The America Invents Act The AIA also retained the old “ex parte reexamination” procedure largely untouched

  7. Key Features ofIPR proceedings

  8. Key Features of IPR Proceedings • Initiated by a Petition (and fee payment): • Formal recitations • Must identify all challenged claims and recite all grounds for review • 60 pages or less, 14pt. font, double spaced • Must be accompanied by all supporting evidence • PTAB expects in most cases the evidence will include one or more expert declarations. • What does a reference disclose? What does the reference mean to a person skilled on the art? Why a feature in inherent in the prior art?

  9. Key Features of IPR Proceedings • Patent Owner (PO) Initial Response (optional): • Decision to Initiate Proceedings • PO takes discovery of Petitioner’s Expert(s) • Patent Owner Response (with PO’s Expert Declarations) and Motion to Amend Claims (only one opportunity) • Petitioner takes discovery of PO’s expert(s). • Petitioner’s Reply (w/ rebuttal declarations) and Opposition to Amendments • PO discovery of rebuttal experts • PO’s Reply • Trial (Oral Hearing) ~~~~~> Final Written Decision

  10. IPR Statistics 9/16/2012 to 9/15/2013 Special thanks to Yasser El-Gamal, Ehab Samuel and Peter Siddoway who compiled some of the following data for the AIPLA http://www.aipla.org/learningcenter/live_webinars/Pages/Wednesday,-October-9,-2013-Webinar.aspx

  11. Statistics • 483 petitions filed in the first year

  12. Statistics • Most IPR petitions have been against NPEs

  13. Statistics • About 6% of IPRs involve Japanese companies

  14. Statistics • About 8% (37) of the IPR petitions have resulted in settlements (20 before, and 17 after, institution)

  15. Statistics • 403 of the 483 petitions (83%) were related to pending patent litigation between the same parties

  16. Statistics • The 403 Petitioners involved in related litigation has filed for stays 159 times

  17. Statistics In most of the 180 decisions on petitions so far, a declaration has been presented by the petitioner

  18. Exemplary cases

  19. IPR-2013-00107 Kyocera v ADC Tech • Kyocera was sued in Fed. Dist. Ct. on August 14, 2012 • Kyocera filed Petition for IPR on January 11, 2013 • Notice of Defective Petition January 16, 2013 (title page) • Patent Owner Response filed April 16, 2013 • Notice of Defective Response April 22, 2013 (14 pt. font) • Trial Instituted May 23, 2013 • Settlement August 22, 2013 “This trial was instituted on May 23, 2013, and is still in the preliminary stages. The parties have advised the Board that the co-pending district court litigation is being dismissed and the parties have represented that no other actions involving US Patent 8,103,313 are pending. Under these circumstances, the Board determines that it is appropriate to terminate the trial without rendering a final written decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.”

  20. IPR-2013-00129 & 130 Komatsu v. Hagenbuch • Komatsu was sued in Fed Dist Ct by Hagenbuch • Komatsu filed Petition 129 on 1/29/13 (14 grounds) • Komatsu filed Petition 130 on 1/29/13 (8 more grounds) • Both petitions were to the same patent concerning “black box” recording vital signs of a vehicle during operation • Settled: April 30, 2013

  21. IPR-2013-00412-424 Toyoda v AVS LLC • American Vehicular Sciences (AVS) sued Toyoda in E. Dist. Texas in July 26, 2012. • Toyoda filed 13 IPR petitions against AVS on July 12, 2013, challenging the 12 asserted patents. • Filing fees alone ~$300,000

  22. IPR-2013-004 & & Kyocera v. Softview • Softview sued Kyocera and 16 other companies on September 30, 2012. • Apple sought inter partes reexam before AIA date • Motorola sought ex parte reexam before AIA date • Kyocera petitioned for IPRs on September 16, 2012 • PTAB stays all re-exams on December 20, 2012 • IPR Trial Instituted on March 29, 2013 • Apple requests permission to file a motion for joinder in April 2013 but then decides not to join • Motorola files two petitions and seek joinder in June 2013 • Motion to stay Delaware litigation granted July 26, 2013

  23. Thanks for your attention! Questions? Tom EngellennerPepper Hamilton, LLP High Street Tower, 19th Floor 125 High Street Boston, MA 02110 +1-617-204-5189 engellennert@pepperlaw.com www.postgrant-counsel.com Name

More Related