Source: https://www.expertguides.com/articles/influence-from-the-top-federal-circuits-influence-on-post-grant-review-trial-practice/ardhdxyv
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:57:33+00:00

Document:
The America Invents Act has significantly changed the patent litigation landscape in the U.S. It created the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") and three new principal post-grant review mechanisms: PGR, IPR, and CBMR ("PTAB Trials"). PTAB Trials are not "trials" in the conventional sense; they are trials on the papers with an oral hearing at the end. The general rules and structure of PTAB Trials are well-known. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently has issued some key decisions that clarify how PTAB Trials are conducted. These decisions address estoppel and redundant grounds, scope of appellate review, motions to exclude and amend, and implications of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA").
Petitioners usually assert multiple grounds of unpatentability as a basis for a PTAB Trial. The PTAB routinely rejects some grounds either on the merits or as redundant. Petitioners have questioned the propriety of that redundancy practice. In Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Automated Creel Sys., Inc., the PTAB instituted PTAB Trials on a subset of the asserted grounds, rejecting some as redundant (the "Payne grounds"). The PTAB eventually issued a Final Written Decision finding some claims unpatentable, but not others.
The PTAB rules on motions to exclude during a PTAB Trial. In Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, Petitioner filed an IPR petition without an expert declaration and the PTAB instituted a PTAB Trial. Patent Owner submitted a Response and Petitioner submitted a Reply supported by a new expert declaration. Patent Owner filed a motion to exclude that declaration.7 The PTAB found that the declaration was properly responsive and declined to exclude it. Patent Owner appealed after the PTAB cancelled some and confirmed other claims.
Patent Owners may file a motion to amend the challenged claims in a PTAB Trial. Proposed amendments are not entered as a matter of right: Patent Owner must demonstrate that the proposed amendments are patentable. The Federal Circuit has confirmed the PTAB's motion to amend practice in Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc. There, the PTAB denied Patent Owner's motion to amend, finding its motion did not establish patentability of the new claims.
As noted, PTAB Trials conclude with an oral hearing. Parties may not present new evidence or argument because the PTAB Trial submissions are already completed by then. In Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, Petitioner made a new anticipation argument as to one of the challenged claims at the PTAB oral hearing. The PTAB relied on this new argument to find the claim unpatentable.
PTAB Trials are becoming part of every U.S. patent dispute. It is important to remember, however, that PTAB Trials are very different from U.S. district court litigation. Trying the two in the same manner is a mistake. Practitioners must consider the PTAB rules and policy when presenting arguments to the PTAB.
2016 WL 1128083, *3 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 23, 2016).
In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 890 (2016).
793 F.3d 1306, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
805 F.3d 1064, 1071 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
789 F.3d 1292, 1305-06 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Id. at 1307-08; see also Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (confirming it is appropriate for the PTAB to require Patent Owner to establish patentability of new claims over prior art Patent Owner makes of record in a PTAB Trial pursuant to its duty of candor and good faith).
2016 WL 1019075, *6 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2016).

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