Source: http://www.gbpatent.com/content/newsletters/Reexam/re10.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:25:34+00:00

Document:
Since September 16, 2012, 432 petitions have been identified in the PTAB’s listing of proceedings for inter partes review (“IPR petitions”) and post grant review against certain patents directed to covered business methods (“CBM petitions”). During July 2013, 67 petitions for IPR and 3 petitions for CBM were filed.
Of the 67 IPR petitions in July, 13 were filed by Toyota Motor Corporation, 12 against American Vehicular Sciences LLC and 1 against LeRoy G. Hagenbuch, Inc. Cardiocom LLC was the second most prolific filer, with 7 petitions filed against Hero Health Network. For the 70 total filings, there were 32 filers, 15 of which filed multiple petitions.
Please click here for the latest spreadsheet reflecting all filings through July 31, 2013.
As of this writing, the PTAB has instituted or terminated 171 of the 432 listed proceedings; 261 petitions await decision.
The PTAB has refused to institute 14 proceedings, the three most recent denials occurring in July, Research in Motion Corp. v. WI-LAN, Inc. IPR2013-00125, petition denied, July 29, 2013, Heart Failure Technologies LLC v. Cardiokienetix, Inc., IPR2013-00183, petition denied July 31, 2013, and NetApp, Inc. v. Personal Web Technologies, LLC, IPR2103-00319, petition denied July 25, 2013. While the first two listed cases were decided on the now familiar standard (no reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim), the NetApp case took a different path. The NetApp case was filed solely for the purpose of joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) with IPR2013-00082, the petitioner not otherwise eligible to bring this IPR under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). The petitioner went beyond simply duplicating the earlier petition and sought to add an additional claim and additional issues to those already under consideration in the earlier IPR. The petition was denied because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the impact of joinder, including the burden to the other parties in light of the new claim challenge and issues, and the impact on the schedule for IPR2013-00082 and other related IPRs, justified joinder.
Nineteen proceedings have been terminated by settlement, with twelve of those settlements coming in July, and 8 of which were predicated on petitions by Oracle Corporation against Clouding IP, LLC, or Community United IP, LLC. See IPR2013-00260, -00261, -00271, -00273, -00275, -00304, -00321, and -00315. One other proceeding was terminated prior to institution in July due to the patent owner’s refusal to participate. UKing Universe, Inc. v. Chang-Kang Chu, IPR2013-00212, final decision cancelling claims 1-5, dated July 12, 2013.
In all, trial is ongoing in 136 proceedings.
Counsel for Petitioner stated during the call that the delay was due to counsel’s mistaken belief that the rule governing times for requesting rehearing in this proceeding was 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, which states that an “Appellant” may file a request for rehearing within two months of a Board decision. Petitioner’s counsel argued that it took immediate steps to rectify the error once it was discovered that the correct rule was 37 C.F.R. § 42.71, and argued that a one-month extension of time would not burden Patent Owner. Counsel for Patent Owner opposed Petitioner’s request, arguing that the proceeding has been completed, Patent Owner suffers from having an ongoing “cloud” over its patent, and the Board’s Decision was correct.
A late action only may be excused “on a showing of good cause or upon a Board decision that consideration on the merits would be in the interests of justice.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3). Petitioner has not met this standard. Practitioners involved in inter partes review proceedings are expected to know the rules for those proceedings. Indeed, Petitioner demonstrated that it is aware of the correct rules for this proceeding by citing numerous provisions of 37 C.F.R. Part 42 in its Petition. See, e.g., Pet. 5-8, 13, 45, 47-48. Moreover, 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 states clearly that it applies to an “Appellant” requesting rehearing of a Board decision, not a petitioner or patent owner in an inter partes review proceeding. Under these circumstances, Petitioner’s mistake in relying on 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 does not demonstrate good cause for a late rehearing request or that consideration of such a request would be in the interests of justice.
examination testimony of its witnesses. It does not mean that had the Board been contacted shortly after the cross examination, the request to change the substantive testimony would have been granted. We take this opportunity to state that unless unopposed by the other party, a request to make a material change to the substance of cross examination testimony is unlikely to be successful no matter when the request is made. Error in transcription is a different matter.
We are not persuaded by the argument that Petitioner, having failed to meet its statutory burden of proof initially, should now be given a second opportunity on the merits based on supposed procedural deficiencies in the petition, as filed. Petitioner’s argument confuses minimum procedural compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 312(a), necessary to obtain a filing date, with the statutory threshold requirements of § 314(a).
. . . In reaching our decision not to institute, we concluded that a combination of two or more of the ten references that might establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the issue of unpatentability was not properly set forth in the Petition. The arguments duly were considered. The threshold question for instituting inter partes review does not relate to whether the Board would have known something was obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see Req. Reh’’g 13), or whether the Board can show that some invention would have been obvious based on evidence submitted by a challenger. Rather, the threshold question is whether the information presented in the petition filed under 35 U.S.C. § 311 and any response filed under § 313 shows that there is “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (emphasis added).
Docket assignments continue to show a heavy load of cases assigned to several experienced inter partes APJs, as reflected in the list below drawn from the spreadsheet. These numbers do not reflect decreases as a result of terminations or assignment of proceedings to another APJ for authoring an opinion. Two other APJs appeared as members of inter partes panels of the first time, namely APJs Christopher L. Crumbley and Trenton A. Ward.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 315
 § 315
 v. 
 § 41
 § 42
 § 42
 § 41
 § 41
 § 312
 § 314
 § 311
 § 313
 § 314