PTAB: Merely Showing That a Reference Was Available on the Internet Does Not Establish ‘Public Accessibility’

January 29, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of a petition for IPR after determining that the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that its primary asserted reference, which was available through the Internet Archive, qualified as a prior art printed publication that was publicly accessible before the critical date. In particular, the board found that the petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence that an interested party exercising reasonable diligence would have located the archived reference.

The challenged patent relates to a free-standing solar tracker that rotates a solar panel assembly to track the movement of the sun during the day. The petitioner challenged two claims as anticipated and obvious over an installation guide for a solar tracker. In addressing the prior art status of the asserted installation guide, the petitioner stated that the reference was publicly accessible because it was available on a webpage prior to the critical date of the patent, as verified by the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. As further support that the reference constituted prior art, the petitioner also submitted an affidavit from a record processor at the Internet Archive who explained that the Wayback Machine allows users to browse more than 450 billion archived webpages by searching their URLs. The affidavit attached screenshots of the webpage that contained the asserted installation guide.

The patent owner in its response argued that the petitioner failed to meet its burden in establishing that the reference is prior art. According to the patent owner, the petitioner did not show that the website containing the reference was indexed in a manner that would allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to locate it. Thus, in the patent owner’s view, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the reference was publicly accessible such that it could have been located with reasonable diligence by those interested or ordinarily skilled in the subject matter.

The board ultimately agreed with the patent owner and found that the petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence or argument to demonstrate that the asserted reference was publicly accessible. In doing so, the board first distinguished the petitioner’s reference from an online publication that would have been well known to the community interested in the subject matter. Here, the petitioner provided no evidence that a person interested in solar panel assemblies would have been independently aware of the web address or even the company name for the asserted installation guide. Next, the board noted there was an absence of evidence demonstrating that the website at which the reference was located was indexed and thereby locatable by an Internet search engine. Because the petitioner’s affidavit only indicated that the Wayback Machine is searchable by URL, without explaining how a query of a search engine using a combination of words would have produced the web address containing the asserted reference, the petitioner failed to establish that the asserted reference would have been located by an interested party exercising reasonable diligence. Ultimately, the board held that the petitioner’s showing that the asserted installation guide was “technically accessible” on the Internet was insufficient to establish public accessibility.

Practice Tip: While relying on archived webpages is a common practice for establishing the prior art status of a reference, parties should take care not to conflate mere accessibility with the legal requirements for showing “public accessibility.” Even where a party can demonstrate that an asserted reference was available on the internet prior to the critical date of a patent, the party must also demonstrate that the reference was either actually disseminated or locatable with reasonable diligence by an interested party to qualify as prior art.

First Solar, Inc. v. Rovshan Sade, IPR2023-00827, Paper 13 (PTAB Nov. 16, 2023).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

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

© 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.