Source: http://www.gbpatent.com/content/newsletters/Reexam/re5.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:26:59+00:00

Document:
On September 16, 2012, the USPTO began accepting petitions seeking to initiate inter partes review proceedings (“IPR petitions”) and petitions for post grant review against certain patents directed to covered business methods (“CBM petitions”). As of January 31, 2013, 136 petitions for IPR or CBM proceedings have been identified in the PTAB’s listing of proceedings. During January 2013, 25 petitions for IPR were filed. For the second straight month, there were no reported petitions for CBM filed.
Please click here for the latest spreadsheet reflecting all filings through January 31, 2013.
Actions by the PTAB of interest are discussed below.
PTAB Addresses § 315(b) one year bar: On January 30, 2013, a three judge panel (Tierney, Chang and Bisk) held in Motorola Mobility LLC v. Arnouse, IPR2013-00010, that the one year time period for filing an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) is triggered not by the date of filing of the complaint by the plaintiff/patent owner but by the date of service of the summons upon the defendant/petitioner. As such, the petitioner was not barred from filing the petition in this proceeding.
PTAB Addresses Real Party In Interest Provisions: On January 24, 2013, a three judge panel (Medley, Easthom and Arbes) held in Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., IPR2012-00018, -00019, -00020, and -00023, that patent owner Xilinx did not demonstrate a failure by petitioner Intellectual Ventures Management to identify all of the real parties in interest as required by 37 CFR § 42.8(b)(1).
PTAB Grants Pro Hac Vice Motions: Motions for pro hac vice admission were granted in IPR2012-00007 (for both parties) and in IPR2013-00012.
PTAB Trial Section Judges: Docket assignments show a heavy load of cases being assigned to several experienced inter partes APJs, as reflected in the following information drawn from the spreadsheet.
10. Improper usage of claim charts.
The rules require that a petition identify how the challenged claims are to be construed and how the claims are unpatentable under the statutory grounds raised. This information is to be provided pursuant to the page limit requirements, which require double spacing. Additionally, the rules require that the petition specify where each element of a challenged claim is to be found in the prior art. The element by element showing may be provided in a claim chart, which is permitted to be written with single spacing. See § 42.6(a)(2)(iii). Placing one’s argument and claim construction in a claim chart to circumvent the double spacing requirement is not permitted.
The Board previously accepted a few petitions with claim charts that include claim constructions, arguments, and explanations as to how the claim is unpatentable because the procedure for filing AIA petitions is new. However, correction is now required when a petition includes improper usage of claim charts.
All documents, other than drawings, must be written in portrait orientation including claim charts and arguments. The Board previously accepted a few petitions with claim charts written in landscape orientation because the procedure for filing AIA petitions is new. However, the Board observes that the number of petitions that have claim charts in landscape orientation is growing.
Failure to clearly set forth the claim construction in the claim construction section of the petition (rather than in the section setting forth how claims are unpatentable); see, e.g., IPR2013-00126, -00127, and -00128.
(1) Inter Partes Review request fee: $9,000.00.
(2) Inter Partes Review Post-Institution fee: $14,000.00.
(3) In addition to the Inter Partes Review request fee, for requesting review of each claim in excess of 20: $200.00.
(4) In addition to the Inter Partes Post-Institution request fee, for requesting review of each claim in excess of 15: $400.00.
(1) Post-Grant or Covered Business Method Patent Review request fee: $12,000.00.
(2) Post-Grant or Covered Business Method Patent Review Post-Institution fee: $18,000.00.
(3) In addition to the Post-Grant or Covered Business Method Patent Review request fee, for requesting review of each claim in excess of 20: $250.00.
(4) In addition to the Post-Grant or Covered Business Method Patent Review request fee Post-Institution request fee, for requesting review of each claim in excess of 15: $550.00.
(1) Derivation petition fee: $400.00.
(d) Any request requiring payment of a fee under this part, including a written request to make a settlement agreement available: $400.00.

References: § 315
 v. 
 § 315
 v. 
 § 42
 § 42