October 26, 2022 – The Patent Trial and Attractiveness Board (PTAB) adjudicates disputes about the validity of an issued patent. Functions accused of infringement often file a petition for inter partesreview (IPR) to challenge the validity of an asserted patent.
Through an IPR continuing, the PTAB to start with challenges a selection no matter whether to institute trial. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). If trial is instituted and the parties do not settle their dispute, the PTAB concerns a closing composed decision at the summary of the trial. Id. § 318(a). A ultimate prepared determination sets forth the PTAB’s reasoning on regardless of whether the petitioner effectively proved that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
A bash dissatisfied with the PTAB’s establishment choice or remaining prepared decision has various options to receive assessment of that choice. This posting addresses the several options and the variances in between these options. The options for getting review of a closing published choice are tackled 1st because there are far more alternatives offered.
There are four alternatives to request review of a final prepared conclusion:
Perspective 2 much more stories
(1) Enchantment to the U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(2) Rehearing by the initial PTAB panel
(3) Precedential Impression Panel (POP) and
(4) Director overview.
Congress licensed a party dissatisfied with a ultimate published determination to attractiveness the choice to the Federal Circuit. 35 U.S.C. § 319. The Federal Circuit reviews legal problems these types of as assert construction and obviousness de novo, i.e., without having deference to the PTAB’s legal conclusions. However, the Federal Circuit assessments factual findings underlying the PTAB’s authorized determinations less than the deferential “sizeable proof” typical.
Therefore, if the PTAB’s factual conclusions assist the PTAB’s authorized summary, the Federal Circuit could possibly not reverse the PTAB’s authorized summary, even although the Federal Circuit may possibly have weighed the evidence in another way. Get-togethers are commonly a lot more productive at the Federal Circuit when they can clearly show lawful error, or a violation of administrative legislation principles, fairly than when making an attempt to attain reconsideration of the information in proof.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Business (USPTO) recognized the rehearing course of action by rule in 2012. A occasion requesting rehearing ought to show in which the initial PTAB panel misapprehended or ignored an argument or evidence in the file, and the panel assessments its prior decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Requesting rehearing is frequently unsuccessful if the requesting celebration asks the authentic PTAB panel to rethink arguments or proof that were dealt with in the first final decision.
In September 2018, the PTAB created the Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) “to determine difficulties of outstanding significance to the [PTAB] (e.g., problems involving agency coverage or technique).” Any occasion to an IPR proceeding may request POP evaluation. By default, POP assessment is done by a panel that features the USPTO Director, the Commissioner for Patents, and the Main Choose of the PTAB, or their designees. POP critique produces binding PTAB precedent on rehearing by default and is carried out in its place of rehearing by the primary PTAB panel.
Events might want to ask for POP overview if there has been a split among PTAB panels on lawful problems, or an intervening modify in regulation or policy at the USPTO (e.g., new Director steerage). If POP evaluation is denied, the authentic PTAB panel may then rehear the decision. At present, POP critique has been granted only 5 instances.
In June 2021, the USPTO founded Director critique in reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S.Ct. 1970 (2021). In Arthrex, the Courtroom held that PTAB judges had been unconstitutionally issuing closing decisions on behalf of the USPTO with out the means for the Director to probably alter or reverse the conclusions just before they became the closing selections of the agency.
The USPTO is at this time running below an interim method for Director evaluation. Having said that, the USPTO a short while ago issued a Ask for for Comments on Director Overview and POP evaluate, and Director Kathi Vidal has indicated that the USPTO intends to interact in official rulemaking on Director evaluation immediately after thought of the public’s feedback.
Events to an IPR proceeding “may well request Director critique of any concern of actuality or law in any ultimate prepared selection,” and “all concerns of law or point are reviewed de novo.” A celebration may request Director overview or rehearing by the primary PTAB panel, but not each. The exception to this binary option is that a occasion may possibly request Director overview of a determination granting rehearing by the initial PTAB panel.
Director Vidal has actively utilized the Director assessment system considering the fact that becoming Director six months back, buying Director review 11 periods in that period. To day, Director evaluation has been ordered 14 situations given that Director assessment was initial established just after Arthrex. Thus, Director overview has resulted in extra rehearing grants than POP review.
If a get together is unsuccessful in seeking Director assessment, POP assessment, or rehearing by the unique PTAB panel, that get together may possibly then attraction an adverse remaining created selection to the Federal Circuit. Functions are not required to request Director critique, POP evaluate, or panel rehearing ahead of captivating a ultimate prepared decision to the Federal Circuit.
The options for obtaining assessment of an establishment final decision are more restricted. In distinction to last composed choices, Congress furnished that institution choices are “remaining and nonappealable.” Id. § 314(d).
For establishment choices, events could ask for rehearing by the authentic PTAB panel or search for POP evaluate.
At existing, get-togethers may well not request Director critique of institution conclusions. Even so, Director Vidal has sua sponte requested Director overview of 4 establishment conclusions, often in reaction to a occasion looking for rehearing or POP critique.
Therefore, amongst the four possibilities to request overview of a closing created decision, only two of individuals choices are available for institution decisions: PTAB panel rehearing, and POP critique.
Get-togethers to an IPR or PGR (article grant review) proceeding should diligently consider the available choices for requesting overview of a PTAB ultimate selection and fully grasp that a person choice may be a lot more appropriate than other individuals primarily based on the issues to be reviewed.
This article demonstrates only the existing private things to consider, thoughts, and/or views of the authors, which really should not be attributed to any of the authors’ recent or prior legislation firm(s) or former or present purchasers.
The writers are regular, joint contributing columnists on patent legislation for Reuters Authorized Information and Westlaw Today.
Views expressed are all those of the creator. They do not replicate the sights of Reuters News, which, below the Rely on Principles, is fully commited to integrity, independence, and freedom from bias. Westlaw Now is owned by Thomson Reuters and operates independently of Reuters Information.