PTAB: Dynamic Drinkware Written Description Requirement Inapplicable to Post-AIA Patents

January 30, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

The Federal Circuit held in Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) that for a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) prior-art reference to be entitled to a provisional application’s priority date, the provisional application must: (1) describe the subject matter relied upon as prior art, and (2) provide written description support for at least one claim in the prior art reference. In a recent precedential decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board declined to apply the Dynamic Drinkware written description requirement to prior art references under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(d). 

In an inter partes review of a patent with a priority date of July 18, 2019, petitioner asserted as prior art a reference claiming priority to a provisional application. Patent owner argued that the reference patent was not entitled to the earlier priority date because the provisional application to which it claimed priority was not shown to provide written description support for at least one claim; as such, patent owner argued that reference failed to qualify as such under Dynamic Drinkware. Petitioner countered that this requirement is limited to pre-AIA patents.

Based on statutory language and USPTO guidance, the board agreed with petitioner holding that, under the AIA, a prior art patent claiming priority to an earlier application need only meet the ministerial requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 119 and 120, and, under the current statutory text of 35 U.S.C. § 102(d), the earlier application must simply describe the subject matter relied upon in the reference patent document as prior art. The board, citing MPEP § 2154.01(b), reasoned that AIA § 102 merely requires that a reference patent be entitled to claim a right of priority and need not be actually entitled to priority under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 100(i)(1)(B). The board also relied on a 2018 USPTO Memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps stating that the pre-AIA written description requirement is not applicable to the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA for prior art determinations. Consequently, according to the board, under AIA §§ 102(a)(2) and 102(d), there is no need to evaluate whether a provisional application’s written description actually entitles any patent claims to priority.

Practice Tip: Under current PTAB practice, a petitioner asserting an AIA reference claiming priority to an earlier-filed application need only meet the three ministerial requirements of (1) claiming priority to a (2) co-pending prior filed application that (3) shares a common inventor or is filed by the same applicant, as well as making a showing that the earlier application describes the subject matter relied upon as prior art. Parties should, however, exercise caution outside the confines of the PTAB in assessing AIA requirements under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(2) and 102(d) until the Federal Circuit rules on the issue.

Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc., IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (March 10, 2023). 

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

November 1, 2024

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission articulated a bright-line test for patent expert admissibility: to testify from the perspective of a “person of ordinary skill in the art” (POSITA), the expert must at least meet the definition of a POSITA for the patents-in-suit. Absent that level of skill, Kyocera holds that the witness’s testimony is not sufficiently reliable or relevant enough to be relied on by a fact-finder.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 29, 2024

The PTAB denied a petitioner’s motion to compel routine discovery that sought information from a parallel ITC investigation for alleged inconsistent positions taken by patent owner in the IPR. The board found that patent owner had not taken inconsistent positions but warned patent owner that it had an ongoing duty to produce any information inconsistent with arguments made during the present IPR, even if that information related to arguments patent owner had dropped at the ITC.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 11, 2024

The Central District of California ruled that the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) applies to all three prongs of a false patent marking claim, including the third prong, competitive injury. In doing so, took a clear stand on an issue with a nationwide split among district courts.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 3, 2024

The Federal Circuit recently upheld the USPTO’s authority under the estoppel provision 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) to prohibit a patent owner from obtaining patent claims that are not patentably distinct from claims previously declared unpatentable in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. However, the court clarified that the regulation applies only to new claims or amended claims, not previously issued claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 27, 2024

In Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit held that an expert must meet the definition of a “person of ordinary skill in the art” of the asserted patents in order to opine on infringement, among other issues. This new bright-line test and the underlying rationale, however, raised several new questions regarding expert admissibility. SeeFederal Circuit: Narrow Definition of Skill in the Art Dooms Expert’s Testimony” and “Grappling With A Bright-Line Patent Expert Admissibility Test.” The Federal Circuit recently addressed one of those questions, namely whether an expert must have acquired the requisite level of skill as of the time of the invention or whether it is sufficient for an expert to acquire that knowledge at a later date.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 23, 2024

The Director of the USPTO initiated sua sponte review of a PTAB panel’s decision to impose sanctions based on patentee’s conduct during IPR proceedings. The PTAB cancelled all of patentee’s claims, including those not unpatentable on the merits, after finding that patentee deliberately withheld data relevant to the patentability of the claims at issue. In her review, the Director addressed which regulations are implicated upon a party’s misconduct during AIA proceedings and addressed whether entry of judgment in the trial was an appropriate sanction.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 18, 2024

The Western District of Texas granted a motion to stay a patent infringement lawsuit pending inter partes review not only because doing so would simplify the issues in the still-early litigation and reduce the burden on the parties, but also because the non-moving party failed to diligently file its lawsuit despite a protracted negotiations period.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 16, 2024

The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”) final written decision for lack of standing where it found the appellant failed to provide evidence sufficient to show it suffered an injury in fact.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.