The New PTAB: Best Practices

Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association

“Washington in the West” Conference January 29, 2013

Los Angeles, California

Jeffrey B. Robertson

Administrative Patent Judge

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

United States Patent & Trademark Office

1/24/2013 2

Outline of Discussion

• Topics

– Appeal Briefs

– Oral Hearings

– New Trial Proceedings

What should be the purpose of

an appeal brief?

• Provide an easy roadmap for us to follow,

providing key landmarks (facts), that lead to

your advocated position

– Simplify, if complex; e.g., appeals in inter

partes reexaminations are generally

complex (appeal records often comprise

1000’s of pages of documents)

– Will help the Board decide cases in a

timely fashion

1/24/2013 3

A brief should:

• Demonstrate reversible error (or lack thereof)

on the part of the examiner with

– Accuracy (law and facts)

– Conciseness

– Completeness

1/24/2013 4

Issues

• Minimum - identify claims and rejections/decision favorable to patentability being appealed

• Address all rejections (if a rejection is not being contested or if rejections are argued together, say so)

• DO NOT include matters outside the Board’s jurisdiction (Finality of a rejection, entry of amendments and/or evidence, SNQ in Inter Partes reexamination)

1/24/2013 5

Issue Statement Ex. 1

(Minimum)

• Whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim

1 under Section 103 as obvious over

References A & B?

1/24/2013 6

Issue Statement Ex. 2 (Better)

• Whether the Examiner, in rejecting claim 1 under Section 103 as obvious over References A & B, erred in failing to consider evidence that would have taught away from use of the claimed widget?

• Whether the Examiner, in rejecting claim 1 under obviousness, erred by failing to consider evidence of unexpected results and commercial success?

1/24/2013 7

Arguments – Ex. (Probably Not

Persuasive)

• Patent Owner submits that the Examiner

failed to establish a prima facie case of

obviousness because Refs. A & B do not

teach or suggest the desirability of using the

claimed widget in the claimed apparatus.

Therefore, the Board should reverse the

Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.

1/24/2013 8

Arguments – Ex. (More

Persuasive)

• The Examiner made two errors. First, the Examiner overlooked evidence showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been taught away from using the claimed widget in the apparatus. (Explain evidence with citation to record). Second, the Examiner also erred in failing to consider and give proper weight to: (1) evidence of unexpected results (explain evidence with citation to record); and (2) evidence of commercial success that establishes a nexus between the claimed widget and the increased sales (Explain evidence with citation to record). These errors require reversal of the rejection.

1/24/2013 9

Evidence Relied Upon

• Should be gathered and submitted early in the prosecution

• Does it support the argument made? (If not, discuss with the client and supplement ASAP.)

• Identify when submitted and considered (hunting for documents in a voluminous record can be very time consuming)

1/24/2013 10

Evidence Relied Upon

• Un-entered evidence will not be considered

• Trial documents are NOT automatically part of the record.

• Evidence appendix – comply with applicable rules.

• Use specific citations to the record (specific document and page, line numbers).

1/24/2013 11

Declaration Evidence –

Unexpected Results

– Over the closest prior art?

– Reasonably commensurate in scope with claims?

– Is there evidence in the record establishing that the results would not have been expected by one of ordinary skill in the art?

1/24/2013 12

Declaration Evidence –

Commercial Success

– Nexus between the asserted difference

and the commercial success (mere sales

figures may not be enough)?

– Comparative sales figures of devices with

and without claimed feature would be

especially helpful, all other factors held

relatively constant.

1/24/2013 13

Do’s

• Be courteous to the Examiner, opposing party (if applicable), and Board personnel

• Consult and study the statutes and rules

– e.g., appealable versus petitionable (e.g., entry of amendments/evidence)

• Continually update copending civil litigation, including any (in)validity or unenforceability rulings

1/24/2013 14

Do’s

• Group claims subject to the same ground of rejection to highlight strongest arguments.

• Clearly indicate which claims are being separately argued.

1/24/2013 15

Do’s

• Claim Construction – Specification and drawings have primacy over other sources (so discuss by reference to specification and drawings)

• Claim construction of key terms

• MPF limitations – (1) define function; and (2) identify corresponding structures by specific reference to the patent (figures, column and line numbers). See In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

1/24/2013 16

Do’s

• In an obviousness rejection, clearly address the examiner’s proposed combination

• Support the arguments with facts in the record (specific citations required)

• Include only the best arguments (weak arguments dilute the strength of the best arguments)

• Address/explain potential weaknesses in your case

1/24/2013 17

Don’ts

• Don’t disperse arguments relating to the same or similar issue throughout the brief

• Don’t merely recite claim language and state that the prior art does not disclose the claim element(s) without explanation

• Don’t make arguments that have no bearing or are not supported by the facts

• Arguments that are conclusory and rely on “catch phrases” e.g., “teaching away” and “analogous art”

1/24/2013 18

Don’ts

• Don’t be longwinded or repetitive (goal is to make it easy for the judges to rule in your favor, not more difficult)

• Don’t incorporate by reference arguments made in other papers

• Delete mere attorney arguments (not supported by specific citations to facts and evidence timely presented/considered below)

1/24/2013 19

Don’ts

• Don’t argue petitionable matters (finality of a rejection, entry of amendments, objections to drawings, etc.)

• Don’t file a reply brief to simply repeat arguments in the appeal brief (respond to Examiner’s Answer)

• Not advisable to raise new arguments in a reply brief

• Don’t use a request for rehearing to make new arguments-requests for rehearing limited to points that are “misapprehended or overlooked”

1/24/2013 20

1/24/2013 21

ORAL HEARING- IS IT NEEDED?

• 37 CFR §41.47(a) An oral hearing should

be requested only in those circumstances

in which appellant considers such a

hearing necessary or desirable for a

proper presentation of the appeal. An

appeal decided on the briefs without an

oral hearing will receive the same

consideration by the Board as appeals

decided after an oral hearing.

1/24/2013 22

IS IT NEEDED?

• Appellants or Respondents (Inter Partes

Reexam) may be better served by relying on

their briefs

• Cross appeals (inter partes reexam) by Third

Party Requesters or Patent Owners may not

need oral arguments

• Attending the hearing may provide as much

feedback as arguing

1/24/2013 23

THINGS TO CONSIDER

• Limited Time

– In ex parte appeals, limited to 20 minutes

– In inter partes reexam, each party is limited

to 30 minutes, which usually includes

questions from the panel

• Limited to Arguments Previously Raised

– Judges often inquire about where a particular

argument can be found in the brief

– Exceptions in certain circumstances

See 37 CFR §41.73(e)(2) – recent relevant

decision

1/24/2013 24

THINGS TO CONSIDER

• Open to the Public

– Unless a petition under 37 CFR §41.3 has

been granted, based on “sufficient reasons,”

everyone gets to come

• Visual Aids

– Must already be in the record or they will not

be considered

– Judges have the electronic file in front of them

– Must make a request beforehand (AV)

1/24/2013 25

THINGS TO CONSIDER

• In person, or via telecommunications

– The Board has the capability to hear cases

telephonically or through video conference

• Structure of oral arguments

– Not every issue in a brief may be covered in

the time allotted

– Issues that are more nuanced should be

emphasized

– Arguments that require visualization may be

best served through oral hearings

1/24/2013 26

Do’s

• Be on time

– multiple cases are heard on same day

• Be courteous to the opposing party and Board

personnel (& the Examiner, potentially)

• Study and consult the statutes and rules

– appealable versus petitionable, for example

• Be knowledgeable of the record and where the

sources of arguments originate

1/24/2013 27

Do’s

• Presume that the panel has spent considerable

time studying the issues and facts in the case,

and in many instances, may have already

formed some initial impressions about the issues

• Expect questions you might not have considered

– “What’s your best argument?”

– “What if we remand this case?”

– “Hypothetically . . .”

– “How can we provide the relief you seek?”

1/24/2013 28

Don’ts

• Don’t read from a script

– Generally a waste of time because rarely, if

ever, does it address the questions that the

judges have on their minds

• Don’t ignore or sidestep questions from the

bench

– Questions often indicate concerns the judge

may have in ruling in your favor

– If you don’t know, or don’t have an answer,

you should so state

1/24/2013 29

Don’ts

• Don’t request a change in hearing date or

time unless exceptional circumstances

(“convincing reasons”)

• Don’t expect to rely on oral testimony

– One party argues (but can have

multiple advocates)

– Inventors and experts remain sidelined

(unless pro se advocate)

Trial Rules

Inter Partes Review §§ 42.100 – 42.123

Post-Grant Review §§ 42.200 – 42.224

Covered Business Method Patent Review

§§ 42.300 – 42.304

Derivation Proceeding Proposed §§ 42.400 –

42.412

Umbrella Trial Rules §§ 42.1 – 42.80

30

Trial Structure

• Same basic structure for all the proceedings

• Reduction of burdens on the parties via:

– Streamlining and converging issues for decision;

– Use of page limits and electronic filing;

– Use of conference calls; and

– Institution of a trial on a claim-by-claim,

ground-by-ground basis

31

Trial Proceedings

32

PO = Patent Owner

Who may practice

Practice Before the Board in the Trial Proceedings

• The lead counsel must be a registered practitioner.

• The Board may recognize counsel pro hac vice during a

proceeding upon a showing of good cause, subject to the

Office’s Code of Professional Responsibility and any other

conditions as the Board may impose. § 42.10(c).

– E.g., counsel is an experienced litigation attorney and has a

familiarity with subject matter at issue.

33

Pro hac vice

Timing: A motion may be filed after 21 days after service of the petition

• An opposition may be filed no later than one week after the filing of the

motion for pro hac vice.

Content of Motion: A motion for pro hac vice admission must have:

• A statement of facts showing there is good cause for the Board to

recognize counsel pro hac vice during the proceeding; and

• A declaration of the individual seeking to appear attesting to:

– E.g., a Bar membership in good standing, no suspensions or

disbarment, and no sanctions or contempt citations.

(IPR2013-00010, Paper 6.)

Examples: CBM2012-00001, Decision denying a motion, Paper 21;

CBM2013-00005, Decision granting a motion, Paper 13.

Inter Partes Review:

Petition Requirements

• Fee

• Real parties in interest

• Claims challenged and grounds

• Claim construction and show how claim is

unpatentable

• Evidence

• Certify not estopped

35

Examples of Defects in Petitions

• Improper claim charts (IPR2013-00036)

– The element by element showing may be provided in a claim

chart, which is permitted to be written with single spacing.

– But placing arguments and claim construction in a claim chart

to circumvent the double spacing requirement is not permitted.

• Redundant grounds (CBM2012-00003)

– Alternative grounds may be presented if an actual need for

presenting alternatives exists and is adequately explained.

– References should be cited in support of the expert’s opinion

because different grounds based separately on expert opinion

and on references creates redundancy and inefficiency.

• Uploading wrong documents (IPR2012-00022)

– The petition may not be accorded the original filing date.

Examples of Discovery Orders

Requests for Additional Discovery:

• Specific documents with a sufficient showing of

relevance – granted

• Specific class of documents with minimal relevance –

the Board suggested that the parties work together to

identify particular documents and sufficient relevance

• General class of documents – denied without prejudice

See CBM2012-00001, Paper 24.

Stays of Concurrent

Proceedings

• Staying concurrent reexamination that involves

the same patent to reduce duplicate efforts and

minimize inconsistent results (IPR2013-00033)

• Denying request that the Board take jurisdiction

over, or suspend, continuing applications of the

involved patent because these applications are

not “involved applications” as defined in § 42.3(a)

(IPR2013-00028)

Protective Orders

• The parties are encouraged to agree on the entry of a

stipulated protective order (CBM2012-00001)

– Absent such agreement, the default standing protective order will

be automatically entered

– Any modifications to the default standing protective order should

be identified

• The protective order take effect upon the filing of a Motion

to Seal by a party and remain in place until lifted or

modified by the Board

• The Board has the authority to enforce the terms of the

Protective Order, to provide remedies for its breach, and

to impose sanctions

Lessons Learned

• Better to provide detailed analysis for limited

number of challenges than identify large

number of challenges for which little analysis is

provided

• Better to request specific, focused discovery

with showing of relevance than to request

broad, open ended discovery.

• Remember to seek authorization to file

motions.

Thank you!

1/24/2013 41