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

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.