Source: http://www.rajanlawoffice.com/blog/category/inter-partes-review
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 12:05:14+00:00

Document:
On March 18, 2019, the PTAB designated three decisions as precedential, two decisions relating to oral arguments and one decision on motion to amend.
Amazon.com, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., IPR2017-00948 (PTAB Jan. 18, 2019) (Paper 34): In the context of a motion to amend, Section 311(b) does not preclude Petitioner from raising, or the Board from considering, other grounds of unpatentability, including Section 101, as to substitute claims not yet part of a patent. The Board explained that Aqua Products shifted the burden from the patent owner on patentability in a motion to amend but did not foreclose analysis of whether substitute claims complied with Section 101.
Oral Argument: The following two decisions are related to testimony at oral arguments.
DePuy Synthes Products, Inc. v. MEDIDEA, LLC, IPR2018-00315 (PTAB Jan. 23, 2019) (Paper 29): Testimony of an inventor at the oral hearing is considered new evidence, and not permitted, if a declaration from the inventor has not been previously provided. In referring to the Trial Practice Guide, the decision states that "[a] party may rely upon evidence that has been previously submitted in the proceeding and may only present arguments relied upon in the papers previously submitted."
On March 7, 2019, PTAB designated a decision on motion to amend as precedential.
Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, 01130 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (Paper 15): This decision sets forth the requirements and burden for a motion to amend. A motion to amend may cancel and/or propose substitute claims; the substitute claim will be treated as contingent and considered only if a preponderance of evidence establishes that the original claim was unpatentable. The burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to show proposed substitute claims are unpatentable and the Board determines unpatentability by preponderance of the evidence based on the entire record. Motion may propose reasonable number of substitute claims and must explain if more than one substitute claim per challenged claim. Patent owner must respond to ground of unpatentability involved in the trial. Motion may not present substitute claims that enlarge the scope or introduce new matter. Motion must include a claim listing reproducing each proposed substitute claim and the motion, as well as any opposition, is limited to 25 pages while reply and sur-reply are limited to 12 pages. All parties have a duty of candor including patent owner's duty to disclose any material to patentability of substitute claims.
On May 8, 2018, the USPTO announced its proposed rulemaking for claim construction standard in PTAB proceedings. The PTO proposed to amend the rules to require the PTAB to interpret the claims in IPR/PGR/CBM proceedings using the same standard as applied in federal district courts and the USITC, and to consider any prior claim construction determination concerning a term of involved claim in a civil action or ITC proceeding that is timely made in the PTAB proceeding. The proposed changes would replace the BRI standard with the claim construction standard used in federal district courts and would be consistent with the PTO's current approach for interpreting claims in an expired patent. Full text of the notice is available here.
On April 24, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decisions in two much-awaited patent cases involving inter partes review. In Oil States, in a 7-2 decision, the Court held that inter partes reviews were constitutional under the public-rights doctrine. Oil States Energy Svcs., LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, 584 U.S. ___ (2018). In SAS, in a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the PTAB must decide the patentability of all the claims the petitioner has challenged in an inter partes review. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. ___ (2018).
In Oil States, petitioner Oil States Energy Services, LLC obtained a patent relating to technology for protecting wellhead equipment used in hydraulic fracturing. Oil States sued Greene's Energy Group, LLC for infringement and Greene's Energy challenged the validity in district court and also filed an IPR petition. The district court issued a claim construction order favoring Oil States while the PTAB concluded that the patented claims were invalid. Oil States appealed to the Federal Circuit challenging the PTAB decision and the constitutionality of IPR. While the appeal was pending, the Federal Circuit rejected the constitutionality of IPR in a separate case and summarily affirmed the PTAB's decision involving Oil States.
On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the inter partes review does not violate Article III. Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas reasoned that IPR falls squarely within the public-rights doctrine and that patents are "public franchises." According to the Court, IPR involves the same basic matter as the grant of a patent subject to the Board's authority and that the Court has recognized that franchises can be qualified in this manner. Addressing the petitioner's arguments, the Court found that the three decision recognizing patent rights are private property were decided under a different statutory scheme, historical practice where courts have adjudicated patent validity does not foreclose Congress from assigning matters governed by public-rights doctrine to the Executive, and that the similarities between the various procedures used in IPR and in courts does not lead to the conclusion that IPR violates Article III. The Court went on to to say that the holding is narrow and does not address whether patents are property for the purposes of Due Process Clause or the Takings Clause.
In his dissent, Justice Gorsuch joined by Chief Justice Roberts, stated that the decision signaled a retreat from Article III's guarantees that "suits at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty" must be heard by independent judges.
Full text of the Oil States opinion is available here.
In SAS, petitioner SAS Institute sought an inter partes review of ComplementSoft's software patent alleging that all 16 of the claims were unpatentable. The Director instituted review of only claims 1 and 3-10 and denied review on the rest. At the end of litigaton, PTAB issued a final written decision finding claims 1, 3 and 5-10 to be unpatentable while upholding claim 4. PTAB's decision did not address the remaining claims on which the Director had refused review. SAS appealed to the Federal Circuit which affirmed the Board's decision and dismissed SAS's argument that 35 USC 318(a) required the Board to decide the patentability of every challenged claim in the petition. SAS filed a writ of certiorari.
On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the Patent Office must decide the patentability of all of the claims the petitioner has challenged in an IPR instituted by the PTAB.
Full text of the SAS opinion is available here.
On April 17, 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's finding that patent owner failed to sufficiently corroborate inventor's testimony of conception. Apator Miitors APS v. Kamstrup A/S, No. 2017-1681 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 17, 2018) (Moore, J.). Kamstrup filed an IPR and Board instituted based in part on Nielsen. During trial, Apator attempted to swear behind Nielsen's effective filing date by proffering a declaration from the inventor. PTAB found that the only evidence of an earlier conception date was the inventor's declaration and that "mere unsupported evidence of the alleged inventor, on an issue of priority" was insufficient proof of prior conception. Based on its finding, the PTAB found the claims to be unpatentable in view of Nielsen reference. On appeal, the Federal Circuit, a panel consisting of Judges Moore, Linn and Chen, affirmed finding that substantial evidence supported the PTAB's finding. The Court reasoned that Apator failed to meet its burden of proof because the email evidence provided to support an earlier conception date failed to indicate that a file relating to the invention was attached.
On June 12, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on the constitutionality of IPRs. Oil States Energy Svcs, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, 639 Fed. Appx. 539 (Fed. Cir. 2016), cert. granted, No. 16-712 (June 12, 2017). The Court presented the following questions: (1) whether inter partes review-an adversarial process used by the PTAB to analyze the validity of existing patents-violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury; (2) whether the amendment process implemented by the PTO in IPR conflicts with this Court's decision in Cuozzo, and congressional direction; and (3) whether the "broadest reasonable interpretation" of patent claims-upheld in Cuozzo for use in IPR requires the application of traditional claim construction principles, including disclaimer by disparagement of prior art and reading claims in light of the patent's specification.
An expanded panel of the PTAB granted the joinder motion allowing the same party's serially-filed IPR petitions to be consolidated into a single proceeding when one of the petitions would have been time-barred but for the grant of the motion. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd. v. Nidec Motor Corp., IPR2015-00762, Paper 16 (PTAB Oct. 5, 2015). Petitioner timely filed an IPR petition but due to certain deficiencies, filed a second petition more than one year after it had been served with a complaint. The second petition however was accompanied by a joinder motion under Section 315(c). A PTAB panel denied the joinder reasoning that the Petitioner could not be joined as a party to a proceeding in which it is already a party. On rehearing by an expanded panel, the expanded panel concluded that Section 315(c) permits both party joinder and issue joinder. In granting the motion, the expanded panel reasoned that the second petition merely seeks to rectify a procedural deficiency of the first petition and doesn't prejudice the patent owner.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.