1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association EMERGING TRENDS IN INTER PARTES...
-
Upload
coral-burke -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association EMERGING TRENDS IN INTER PARTES...
11 AIPLA
Firm Logo
American Intellectual Property Law Association
EMERGING TRENDS IN INTER PARTES REVIEW PRACTICE
TOM ENGELLENNERPepper Hamilton, LLP
IP in Japan Committee MeetingAIPLA Annual Meeting, Washington D.C.
October, 2013
22 AIPLA
Firm Logo
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
33 AIPLA
Firm Logo
The Post-AIAWorld
44 AIPLA
Firm Logo
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.”
55 AIPLA
Firm Logo
The America Invents Act
IPR CBM PGR
Grounds 102 & 103 but only patents and printed publications
101 (ineligible subject matter)112 (enablement or written description) &all102/103 prior art
101 (ineligible subject matter)112 (enablement or written description) &all102/103 prior art
Timing Pre-AIA patents:AnytimePost-AIA patents:9 months after issue and after termination of PGR challenges
Pre-AIA patents:Anytime if sued or threatened by PO.Post-AIA patents:9 months after issue and after all PGR challenges are terminated
Available only forPost AIA patents:Must be filed within9 months of grant
Standard Receivable likelihood success
More likely than not that a claim is invalid
More likely than notthat a claim is invalid
66 AIPLA
Firm Logo
The America Invents Act
IPR
Grounds 102/103 patents and publications
Standard of review
Reasonable likelihood ofsuccess
Participation Full
Estoppel? Yes
Decision Maker
New “Patent Trial and Appeal Board”
Ex Parte
Grounds 102/103 patents and publications
Standard of review
Substantial new question of patentability
Participation Very limited
Estoppel? No
Decision Maker Central Reexam Unit
The AIA also retained the old “ex parte reexamination” procedure largely untouched
77 AIPLA
Firm Logo
Key Features ofIPR proceedings
88 AIPLA
Firm Logo
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?
99 AIPLA
Firm Logo
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
1010 AIPLA
Firm Logo
IPR STATISTICS9/16/2012 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
1111 AIPLA
Firm Logo
Statistics
• 483 petitions filed in the first year
1212 AIPLA
Firm Logo
Statistics
• Most IPR petitions have been against NPEs
1313 AIPLA
Firm Logo
Statistics
• About 6% of IPRs involve Japanese companies
1414 AIPLA
Firm Logo
Statistics
• About 8% (37) of the IPR petitions have resulted in settlements (20 before, and 17 after, institution)
1515 AIPLA
Firm Logo
Statistics
• 403 of the 483 petitions (83%) were related to pending patent litigation between the same parties
1616 AIPLA
Firm Logo
Statistics
• The 403 Petitioners involved in related litigation has filed for stays 159 times
1717 AIPLA
Firm Logo
Statistics
In most of the 180 decisions on petitions so far, a declaration has been presented by the petitioner
1818 AIPLA
Firm Logo
Exemplary cases
1919 AIPLA
Firm Logo
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.”
2020 AIPLA
Firm Logo
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
2121 AIPLA
Firm Logo
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
2222 AIPLA
Firm Logo
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
2323 AIPLA
Firm Logo
Thanks for your attention! Questions?
TOM ENGELLENNERPepper Hamilton, LLP
High Street Tower, 19th Floor125 High Street
Boston, MA 02110+1-617-204-5189
Name