TreatiseTreatise

Post-Grant Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

 by Oblon Spivak Maier Neustadt, Stephen G Kunin, Scott A McKeown, Greg H Gardella
 
 Copyright: 2013-2014
 Last Updated: November 2014

 Product Details >> 

Product Details

  • ISBN Number: 9781402418419
  • Page Count: 526
  • Number of Volumes: 1
  •  
  • The purchase of PLI titles may include Basic Upkeep Service, whereby
    supplements, replacement pages and new editions may be shipped
    to you immediately upon publication for a 30-day examination. This
    service is cancelable at any time.

The America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) created the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which replaced the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and which presides over various new proceedings designed to provide parties with a more effective venue in which to litigate patent validity. The most commonly used procedure is inter partes review, which effectively replaced inter partes reexamination as of September 16, 2012. Other post-grant proceedings include Post-Grant Review and the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents.

Post-Grant Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is a comprehensive guide through the process of initiating a post-grant proceeding, taking discovery, seeking sanctions, proposing and opposing claim amendments, effectively advocating at the oral hearing, appealing to the Federal Circuit, and handling a wide array of issues involving co-pending district court litigation.

It also provides you with a detailed discussion of the legislative history of the AIA and walks you through the requirements of the recently finalized Rules of Practice and Practice Guide.
  Foreword
  Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction
  • § 1:1 : Evolution of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act1-2
    • § 1:1.1 : Recommendations for Patent System Reform1-2
      • [A] : The FTC Report and NRC Report1-3
      • [B] : Patent Reform Bills1-4
    • § 1:1.2 : The Patent Reform Act of 20051-5
  • § 1:2 : Evolution of AIA’s New Post-Issuance Patent Challenge Procedures1-7
    • § 1:2.1 : Addressing the Limitations of the Ex Parte Reexamination Process1-7
    • § 1:2.2 : Different Approaches of Proposed Legislation to Key Issues1-10
      • [A] : Threshold1-10
      • [B] : Timing1-10
      • [C] : Scope of Review1-11
      • [D] : Estoppel1-12
      • [E] : Discovery1-13
      • [F] : Sanctions1-13
  • § 1:3 : New Post-Grant Patent Procedures Under the AIA1-14
    • § 1:3.1 : Overview of Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, and Transitional Program for Covered Business Methods1-14
      • [A] : Threshold1-14
      • [B] : Effective Date1-15
      • [C] : Scope1-15
      • [D] : Timing of Filing1-15
      • [E] : Estoppel1-16
      • [F] : Procedures1-16
        • [F][1] : Discovery1-16
        • [F][2] : Sanctions1-16
        • [F][3] : Evidentiary Burden1-17
        • [F][4] : Oral Hearing1-17
        • [F][5] : Three-Judge Panels1-17
        • [F][6] : Preliminary Response1-17
        • [F][7] : Twelve- to Eighteen-Month Deadline1-17
    • § 1:3.2 : Example of Post-Grant Proceedings Timeline1-17
  • § 1:4 : History and Structure of the Board1-18
    • § 1:4.1 : Organizational History1-19
      • [A] : Names and Designations1-19
      • [B] : Examiners/Judges1-19
      • [C] : Board Duties and Responsibilities1-20
    • § 1:4.2 : Historical Timeline1-20
    • § 1:4.3 : Current Structure of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)1-33
  • § 1:5 : PTAB Has Become the Busiest Patent Court in the United States1-33
Chapter 2: Prefiling Considerations
  • § 2:1 : Overview2-2
  • § 2:2 : Stay of Co-Pending Litigation2-6
    • § 2:2.1 : Generally2-6
    • § 2:2.2 : Specific Considerations in a Court's Decision to Grant a Stay2-7
      • [A] : Stage of Litigation2-7
      • [B] : Simplification of Issues2-8
      • [C] : Are Parties Competitors?2-9
      • [D] : Duration of Proceedings2-9
    • § 2:2.3 : Stays in International Trade Commission Proceedings2-13
    • § 2:2.4 : Grant Rate Statistics in Specific Courts2-14
  • § 2:3 : Statutory Estoppel2-16
  • § 2:4 : Evidence and Admissions2-17
  • § 2:5 : Claim Construction2-18
  • § 2:6 : Invalidity Arguments2-19
    • § 2:6.1 : Existence of Invalidity Arguments that Are Not Subject to IPR2-19
    • § 2:6.2 : Technical Complexity of Invalidity Arguments2-19
  • § 2:7 : Circumventing Invalidity Arguments via Claim Amendments2-20
  • § 2:8 : Intervening Rights and Design-Arounds2-21
  • § 2:9 : Threat of Injunction2-22
  • § 2:10 : Predictable Versus Unpredictable Arts2-24
  • § 2:11 : Asymmetry of Discovery-Related Burdens2-25
  • § 2:12 : Impact on International Trade Commission Proceedings2-26
  • § 2:13 : Evidence Concerning Willful Infringement and Inequitable Conduct2-27
  • § 2:14 : Ability of Declarants to Withstand Cross-Examination2-28
  • § 2:15 : Filing Fees and Page Limits2-29
  • § 2:16 : Eleventh Amendment Immunity from Suit2-30
  • § 2:17 : The Role of Ex Parte Reexamination Post-AIA2-31
  • § 2:18 : Prefiling Strategies Unique to Patent Owners2-32
    • § 2:18.1 : Preemptive Filing May Provide More Patentee Flexibility in Amending2-32
    • § 2:18.2 : The Estoppel Impact of PTAB Validity Trials2-34
    • § 2:18.3 : Recommendations on How to Avoid the Effect of Patentee Estoppel2-36
      • [A] : Preemptive Model2-37
      • [B] : After-the-Fact Model2-37
Chapter 3: Petition for Inter Partes Review
  • § 3:1 : Overview3-2
  • § 3:2 : Petition Requirements3-2
    • § 3:2.1 : Fee Calculation and Payment3-3
    • § 3:2.2 : Parties in Interest and Mandatory Notices3-3
    • § 3:2.3 : Claims Challenged and Grounds3-7
      • [A] : Standing3-7
      • [B] : Identification of Challenge(s)3-9
      • [C] : Threshold Standard3-13
      • [D] : Service3-16
      • [E] : Other Filing Requirements and Considerations3-17
      • [F] : Claim Charts3-18
  • § 3:3 : Filing Date and Correction of Errors3-19
    • § 3:3.1 : Filing Date3-19
    • § 3:3.2 : Threshold Requirements for Institution of Review3-21
    • § 3:3.3 : Correcting a Noncompliant Petition3-21
    • § 3:3.4 : Most Common Defects Giving Rise to Non-Compliance3-22
  • § 3:4 : Expert Witness Testimony3-23
  • § 3:5 : Most Common Mistakes in Petition Drafting3-25
    • § 3:5.1 : Deficient Evidentiary Declarations3-25
    • § 3:5.2 : “Mix and Match” Grounds of Unpatentability3-26
    • § 3:5.3 : Lack of Coherent Claim Construction Positions3-26
    • § 3:5.4 : Redundancy in the Grounds of Unpatentability3-27
    • § 3:5.5 : Failure to Recognize the Importance of theTwelve-Month Window3-28
  • § 3:6 : Jurisdiction, Standing and Joinder3-28
Chapter 4: Patent Owner Preliminary Response
  • § 4:1 : Overview4-1
  • § 4:2 : Timing and Waiver4-2
  • § 4:3 : Content of a Preliminary Response4-4
    • § 4:3.1 : General Rule4-4
    • § 4:3.2 : New Testimonial Evidence Exception4-5
    • § 4:3.3 : Limited Discovery Exception4-5
    • § 4:3.4 : Page Limitations4-6
    • § 4:3.5 : Examples of Acceptable Preliminary Response Arguments4-6
    • § 4:3.6 : Other Inclusion Rules4-8
  • § 4:4 : Strategic Considerations4-8
Chapter 5: Institution of Inter Partes Review and Submission of Supplemental Evidence
  • § 5:1 : Statutory Deadline5-1
  • § 5:2 : Issuance of Decision5-4
  • § 5:3 : Entry of Preliminary Scheduling Order5-5
  • § 5:4 : Scope of Issues Decided5-8
  • § 5:5 : Estoppel Effect of Decision5-8
  • § 5:6 : Requests for Reconsideration5-9
  • § 5:7 : Alternative Grounds of Unpatentability May Be Deemed Redundant5-10
  • § 5:8 : Review of Decision to Institute Under the Administrative Procedures Act5-11
  • § 5:9 : Submission of Supplemental Evidence5-12
Chapter 6: Discovery
  • § 6:1 : Overview6-2
  • § 6:2 : Historical Perspective: Discovery in Interference Practice6-3
  • § 6:3 : PTAB’s Expected Narrow View of Discovery When Defining the Scope of Relevant Materials6-7
  • § 6:4 : Mandatory/Routine Disclosures6-10
    • § 6:4.1 : Initial Disclosures6-10
    • § 6:4.2 : Routine Discovery6-13
  • § 6:5 : Disclosure of Inconsistent Information6-14
    • § 6:5.1 : When to Submit Required Inconsistent Information6-15
    • § 6:5.2 : Scope of Required Relevant Inconsistent Information6-16
  • § 6:6 : Requests for Additional Discovery6-18
    • § 6:6.1 : Requests for Additional Discovery “In the Interests of Justice” and “Good Cause”6-18
    • § 6:6.2 : Initial Request for Authorization Versus Formal Motions for Additional Discovery or Other Matters6-23
    • § 6:6.3 : Requests for Additional Discovery During Cross-Examination6-24
  • § 6:7 : Third-Party Discovery6-26
  • § 6:8 : Depositions—Mechanics and Practice6-29
    • § 6:8.1 : General Deposition Framework6-29
    • § 6:8.2 : Interference Deposition/Testimony Guidelines and the BPAI’s Application of Same6-31
    • § 6:8.3 : The BPAI’s Direct Rejection of Additional Common Litigation Objections and Practices6-34
      • [A] : “Blanket” Objections Insufficient and Waived, Even if Subject of a Stipulation Between Parties6-34
      • [B] : Objections Not Made on the Record at the Time of Deposition Waived, and Not “Reserved Until the Time of Trial,” Despite Stipulation Between Parties to the Contrary6-35
      • [C] : Objections to the “Form of the Question” Additionally Improper, Since They Are Not Included Within the Federal Rules of Evidence6-35
      • [D] : Objections to Questions As “Vague,” “Unclear”/“Not Clear” and “Ambiguous” Likewise Improper in Interference Cross-Examinations, Since They Are Not Included Within the Federal Rules of Evidence6-36
      • [E] : Objections that Questions “Mischaracterize” or “Misstate” Prior Testimony Improper6-36
    • § 6:8.4 : Best Practices for Defending and Taking Cross-Examinations6-37
    • § 6:8.5 : Preparing Witnesses for Cross-Examination6-38
    • § 6:8.6 : Conducting Depositions in a Foreign Language6-38
  • § 6:9 : Document Requests6-40
  • § 6:10 : Objections, Admissibility, and Motions in Limine6-41
  • § 6:11 : Protective Orders and Confidentiality Designations6-43
  • § 6:12 : Need for Litigation Hold for Parties to Avoid Spoliation and Sanctions6-44
Chapter 7: Sanctions
  • § 7:1 : Introduction7-2
  • § 7:2 : Sanctioning Power Under AIA7-2
  • § 7:3 : Historical Perspective7-4
    • § 7:3.1 : Legislative History of Sanctions Provision7-4
      • [A] : House Judiciary Committee Hearings7-4
      • [B] : House and Senate Debates7-5
    • § 7:3.2 : Comparison with Past Provisions7-6
  • § 7:4 : PTO’s Historical Experience7-10
    • § 7:4.1 : BPAI Experience7-10
      • [A] : Measuring Sanctionable Behavior7-11
      • [B] : Determining Appropriate Sanctions7-11
      • [C] : Defining a “Frivolous” Position7-12
      • [D] : Best Practices in Seeking Sanctions7-13
    • § 7:4.2 : TTAB Experience7-13
  • § 7:5 : Risks Associated with Various Common District Court Litigation Tactics7-15
    • § 7:5.1 : Discovery Abuses7-15
    • § 7:5.2 : Depositions7-17
    • § 7:5.3 : Requests for Extensions of Time7-18
    • § 7:5.4 : Spoliation7-19
    • § 7:5.5 : “Off-the-Record” Communications7-20
  • § 7:6 : Pursuing Sanctions7-20
    • § 7:6.1 : Procedure7-20
    • § 7:6.2 : Timing7-22
    • § 7:6.3 : What Sanctions Are Available?7-22
      • [A] : Mandated Sanctions7-22
      • [B] : Informal Sanctions7-23
  • § 7:7 : Appealing Sanctions7-24
    • § 7:7.1 : Rehearing7-24
    • § 7:7.2 : Appeal7-24
Chapter 8: Patent Owner Discovery Period, Response and Proposed Amendments
  • § 8:1 : Patent Owner Discovery Period8-1
    • § 8:1.1 : Cross-Examination of Petitioner’s Declarant(s)8-4
    • § 8:1.2 : Seeking “Additional” Discovery8-8
      • [A] : Impermissible Uses of “Additional” Discovery8-8
      • [B] : Use of “Additional” Discovery to Explore Secondary Indicia of Non-Obviousness8-9
    • § 8:1.3 : Discovery of Third Parties by Way of Subpoena Issued Under the Authority of an Appropriate District Court8-10
  • § 8:2 : Patent Owner Response Requirements8-11
  • § 8:3 : Amendments to Claims and Substitute Claims8-12
    • § 8:3.1 : Requirements8-12
    • § 8:3.2 : No Broadening Amendments8-14
    • § 8:3.3 : Establishing that an Amendment Is Responsive to Ground of Patentability at Issue8-15
Chapter 9: Petitioner Discovery Period, Reply and Opposition to Proposed Amendments
  • § 9:1 : Petitioner Discovery Period9-1
    • § 9:1.1 : Routine Discovery9-2
    • § 9:1.2 : Production of Cited Exhibits9-2
    • § 9:1.3 : Cross-Examination of Patent Owner’s Declarant9-2
    • § 9:1.4 : Information That Is Inconsistent with a Position Advanced During the Proceeding9-4
  • § 9:2 : Petitioner’s Reply to the Patent Owner’s Opposition9-4
  • § 9:3 : Petitioner’s Opposition to the Patent Owner’s Proposed Amendments9-6
Chapter 10: Patent Owner Supplemental Discovery and Reply to Opposition to Proposed Amendments
  • § 10:1 : Supplemental Patent Owner Discovery10-1
    • § 10:1.1 : Timing10-1
    • § 10:1.2 : Scope10-2
      • [A] : Routine Discovery by Patent Owner10-2
      • [B] : Additional Discovery by Patent Owner10-3
  • § 10:2 : Patent Owner Reply to Opposition to Proposed Patents10-3
    • § 10:2.1 : Petitioner’s Observations on Cross-Examination10-4
Chapter 11: Motions, Including Termination and Settlement
  • § 11:1 : In General11-2
  • § 11:2 : Filing Motions11-2
    • § 11:2.1 : Timing11-2
    • § 11:2.2 : Procedure for Filing Motions11-3
    • § 11:2.3 : Content of Motions11-3
    • § 11:2.4 : Opposition to Motion11-4
    • § 11:2.5 : Reply to Opposition11-5
    • § 11:2.6 : Affidavits in Support of Motions, Oppositions, or Replies11-5
  • § 11:3 : Board Action on a Motion and Request for Rehearing11-6
  • § 11:4 : Types of Motions11-6
    • § 11:4.1 : Motions to Terminate Based on Settlement11-6
    • § 11:4.2 : Motions to Exclude Evidence11-9
    • § 11:4.3 : Motion to Seal11-11
    • § 11:4.4 : Motions to Expunge11-13
    • § 11:4.5 : Motions for Joinder11-13
    • § 11:4.6 : Motions to File Supplemental Information11-17
    • § 11:4.7 : Motion for Judgment Based on Supplemental Information11-17
    • § 11:4.8 : Motions for Observations on Cross-Examination11-18
    • § 11:4.9 : Motions to Compel11-18
    • § 11:4.10 : Motions to Amend the Patent11-20
    • § 11:4.11 : Motions for Additional Discovery11-20
    • § 11:4.12 : Motions in Limine11-20
    • § 11:4.13 : Motion to Waive Page Limits11-20
    • § 11:4.14 : Motion for Correction of Notice of Basis for Relief11-21
    • § 11:4.15 : Motions to Correct Petition11-21
    • § 11:4.16 : Motion for Paper Filing11-22
    • § 11:4.17 : Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice11-22
    • § 11:4.18 : Motion to React to the Exclusion of an Inventor or Co-Owner11-23
    • § 11:4.19 : Motions for Relief on Grounds Not Identified in the Rules11-23
Chapter 12: Hearing
  • § 12:1 : Request for a Hearing12-1
  • § 12:2 : The Hearing Panel12-2
  • § 12:3 : Order of Proceeding12-2
  • § 12:4 : Exhibits12-3
    • § 12:4.1 : Content12-3
    • § 12:4.2 : Format12-3
    • § 12:4.3 : Numbering12-4
    • § 12:4.4 : Filing Deadlines and Other Requirements12-5
  • § 12:5 : Depositions Versus Live Testimony12-6
  • § 12:6 : New Evidence and Arguments12-7
Chapter 13: Final Written Decision and Rehearing Requests
  • § 13:1 : Requirement and Definition13-1
    • § 13:1.1 : Timing13-1
    • § 13:1.2 : Content13-2
  • § 13:2 : Impact: Estoppel13-2
    • § 13:2.1 : Certificate13-3
  • § 13:3 : Rehearing Requests13-4
Chapter 14: Appeals to the Federal Circuit
  • § 14:1 : In General14-1
  • § 14:2 : Filing the Notice of Appeal14-2
  • § 14:3 : Standard of Review14-4
  • § 14:4 : Preservation of Issues for Appeal14-7
  • § 14:5 : Strategic Considerations14-8
Chapter 15: Parallel Litigation
  • § 15.1 : Introduction15-2
  • § 15.2 : Background on PTAB Proceedings Relevant to Concurrent Litigation15-2
    • § 15.2.1 : Timing15-2
    • § 15.2.2 : Limited Discovery15-3
    • § 15.2.3 : The Quality of Adjudication Under the PTAB15-4
  • § 15.3 : Practical Impact of the Change to Inter Partes Review on Litigation—Estoppel15-4
  • § 15.4 : The New Landscape—PTAB Proceedings As Alternatives to Litigation15-7
    • § 15.4.1 : Timing—Use It or Lose It15-7
    • § 15.4.2 : PTAB Proceedings in Relation to Declaratory Judgments15-8
    • § 15.4.3 : Post-Grant Proceedings in Relation to Stays15-9
    • § 15.4.4 : The “Automatic Stay” Provision for CBMs15-12
  • § 15.5 : Pre-Trial Strategies15-14
    • § 15.5.1 : Stay of District Court Litigation15-14
      • [A] : Decision to Stay—Factors-Based Analysis15-14
        • [A][1] : Prejudice15-15
        • [A][2] : Simplification15-16
        • [A][3] : Timing15-16
      • [B] : Pending Preliminary Injunctions15-16
        • [B][1] : Creative Stay Tactics—Defendants: Motion to Transfer Followed by a Motion to Stay (“Texas Two-Step”)15-17
        • [B][2] : Creative Stay Tactics—Plaintiffs: Stay Calculus Relating to the ITC (“ITC End-Around”)15-19
        • [B][3] : Can You Appeal a Stay Determination?15-20
    • § 15.5.2 : Intervening Rights15-22
      • [A] : The Substantially Identical Standard15-23
      • [B] : Types of Intervening Rights15-25
      • [C] : Claim Construction and Intervening Rights15-26
      • [D] : Amended in Effect?15-27
    • § 15.5.3 : Enhanced Claim Construction15-28
      • [A] : Using the Proceeding As an Ongoing Prosecution History15-29
      • [B] : Self-Serving Statements15-32
    • § 15.5.4 : Inequitable Conduct (Materiality Analysis)15-33
    • § 15.5.5 : Willfulness15-35
  • § 15.6 : Post-Trial Strategies15-37
    • § 15.6.1 : Avoiding Injunctive Relief15-37
      • [A] : Enforcement of Injunction Stayed in View of PTO Determination15-37
    • § 15.6.2 : Avoiding Judgment/Impacting Invalidity15-39
      • [A] : When Inter Partes Estoppel Applies15-41
      • [B] : The Reach of the Estoppel15-42
      • [C] : Inter Partes Patent Estoppel May Not Apply to Prior Art Deemed “Unavailable”15-43
  • § 15.7 : USPTO Post-Grant Patent Cancellation Trumps Court Judgment15-44
  • § 15.8 : Conclusion15-45
Chapter 16: Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents
  • § 16.1 : Introduction16-1
  • § 16.2 : Historical Background16-2
  • § 16.3 : Intent16-5
  • § 16.4 : Unique Features of the TPCBMP16-5
    • § 16.4.1 : Scope16-5
    • § 16.4.2 : Timing and Sunset16-6
    • § 16.4.3 : Standing16-7
    • § 16.4.4 : Requests for Stay16-8
    • § 16.4.5 : Prior Art Limitations16-9
    • § 16.4.6 : Estoppel16-10
    • § 16.4.7 : Subject Matter Eligibility16-11
  • § 16.5 : Implementation: PTAB Rules for CBM16-17
  • § 16.6 : Strategies16-20
    • § 16.6.1 : Patent Owner Strategy16-20
    • § 16.6.2 : Petitioner Strategy16-20
  • § 16.7 : Early Cases16-21
Chapter 17: Preview of Post-Grant Review Procedures
  • § 17.1 : Introduction17-1
  • § 17.2 : Applicability of the Rules Governing Practice Before the PTAB17-3
  • § 17.3 : Eligibility17-4
  • § 17.4 : Window for Filing17-5
  • § 17.5 : Scope of Defenses Considered17-6
  • § 17.6 : Scope of Estoppel17-9
  • § 17.7 : Discovery17-10
  • § 17.8 : Strategic Considerations17-11
  • § 17.9 : Other Provisions17-11
Appendix A: Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
Appendix B: Rules of Practice Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex Parte Appeals
  Index

  Please click here to view the latest update information for this title: Last Update Information  
 

Print Share Email
News & Expert Analysis

December 17, 2014

A Survey of Some Interesting New Patents from Microsoft

From: Patent Law Practice Center

According to statistics released earlier this year...

December 15, 2014

Innovation Focus: Cisco Pursues Telepresence Technologies

From: Patent Law Practice Center

Cisco Systems, Inc. of San Jose, CA, is a corporat...

December 11, 2014

Tentative FDA Approval for Oral Pediatric HIV Treatment

From: Patent Law Practice Center

Mylan Inc. recently announced that its subsidiary ...