PTAB Institutes IPR Despite Delayed Sotera Stipulation

February 16, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution of inter partes review after petitioner submitted a Sotera stipulation to patent owner via email, several days after patent owner’s preliminary response. The board rejected patent owner’s argument that the Sotera stipulation was too late, holding that there is no specific time limit for when such stipulation must be submitted before a decision on institution is made.

Petitioner filed an IPR petition alleging that certain claims covering methods for displaying social networking and navigation information would have been obvious. In its preliminary response, patent owner argued that the board should exercise its discretion to deny institution because of its parallel infringement action involving the same parties and invalidity challenges. A few days later, petitioner emailed patent owner stating that, pursuant to Sotera, petitioner would not pursue “any ground that [it] raised or reasonably could have raised” during the IPR, if instituted. The parties requested, and the board allowed, a pre-institution reply and sur-reply to address, among other issues, discretionary denial.

Petitioner noted that under the board’s interim procedure, the board will not discretionarily deny institution in view of such a stipulation. Petitioner further explained that validity is not at issue in its action for declaratory judgment of noninfringement filed in a different district. In response, patent owner asked the board to discredit petitioner’s “eleventh hour” stipulation and criticized petitioner for filing the noninfringement action, multiplying proceedings “where validity will certainly be an issue.”

Agreeing with petitioner, the board first noted the absence of any precedent establishing a deadline for providing a Sotera stipulation, so long as it is provided far enough in advance that the board can take it into consideration. Patent owner had identified no prejudice that it suffered based on the timing of the stipulation here. The board also rejected patent owner’s argument that petitioner’s declaratory judgement action, on its own, was sufficient to support discretionary denial. Indeed, according to the board, patent owner’s Fintiv analysis was based entirely on its parallel infringement action.

Practice Tip: Some petitioners may wish to delay filing a Sotera stipulation until after considering a patent owner’s preliminary response. If so, petitioners should recognize that they must still provide such a stipulation early enough for the board to consider it prior to deciding whether to institute review. And patent owners who wish to rely on multiple parallel proceedings to support denial of institution should ensure that they address each such proceeding in their Fintiv analysis.

BMW of North America, LLC v. NorthStar Systems LLC, IPR2023-01017, Paper No. 12 (PTAB Dec. 8, 2023)

 

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 21, 2025

Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff who prevails on a trademark infringement claim may be entitled to recover the “defendant’s profits” as damages. The Supreme Court in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. unanimously construed “defendant’s profits” in 35 USC § 1117(a) to mean that only the named defendant’s profits can be awarded, not the profits of other related corporate entities. The Court, however, left open the possibility that other language in § 1117(a) may allow for damages linked to the profits of related entities, if properly raised and supported.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 13, 2025

In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short, a parenthetical citation was held to be insufficient, while three passages discussing a cited reference met the test.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 4, 2025

On February 28, 2025, the USPTO announced that it was rescinding former Director Vidal’s 2022 memorandum on discretionary denials by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The 2022 memorandum effectively narrowed the application of discretionary denials in cases with parallel district court litigation by specifying instances where discretionary denial could not be issued. With the withdrawal of the memorandum, individual PTAB panels will regain flexibility in weighing discretionary denials. While the long-term effect of that increased flexibility is not yet known, the immediate effect is likely to be a shift towards the discretionary analysis applied by PTAB panels before the issuance of the memorandum.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 3, 2025

A District of Delaware judge recently granted a defendant’s motion to include a patent prosecution bar in its proposed protective order after determining that litigation counsel’s ability to practice before the Patent Office—without ever having represented the plaintiffs at the Patent Office in the past—weighed heavily in favor of the bar.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 12, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that found a patent that did not describe after-arising technology failed to satisfy the written description requirement. In so doing, the Federal Circuit explained that written description and enablement are evaluated based on the subject matter that is claimed, not the products that practice those claims. As a result, the patentee was not required to describe unclaimed, later-discovered features of the accused products despite the broad language in the claims that undisputedly covered the products.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 24, 2025

The District of Delaware recently rejected a patentee’s argument that non-production of an opinion letter from counsel, combined with knowledge of the patent, warranted a finding that defendant induced infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 17, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss a patent infringement complaint involving gene editing technology that sought relief under the Safe Harbor Provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act. Specifically, the court found the patentee’s complaint sufficiently alleged at least some uses of the claimed technology that, when taken as true, were not solely uses of a “patented invention” that were “reasonably related” to an FDA submission.

...

Read More

© 2025 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.