PTAB Permits Submission of Evidence Midstream to Bolster Public Accessibility of References Despite Objections

August 6, 2024

Reading Time : 4 min

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has granted a petitioner’s motion to submit supplemental information, over patent owner’s objections, concerning the public availability of references that were relied upon to support grounds of unpatentability in the petition.

Petitioner filed a petition challenging patent claims directed to a semiconductor power device. Petitioner relied upon the Kikkawa reference as primary reference for obviousness and the accompanying expert declaration referred to the Kim reference to further support petitioner’s grounds of unpatentability. The PTAB instituted trial on all challenged claims and patent owner filed objections to evidence challenging the admissibility of petitioner’s expert declaration and the alleged date of publication of Kikkawa and Kim.

In response, and with authorization from the PTAB, petitioner moved to submit supplemental expert declarations providing testimony to support the public availability and accessibility of the Kikkawa and Kim references. Petitioner argued that its submission constituted supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a) that was timely disclosed and relevant to issues in the case concerning availability of prior art references and the reliability of its expert’s testimony. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a) (authorizing a party to move to submit supplemental information after trial is instituted if (1) the request is made within one month after institution date and (2) the supplemental information is relevant to a claim for which trial was instituted). Petitioner also contended that its proffered evidence would not create new issues or change the evidence initially submitted in the petition, impede a speedy resolution of the proceeding, or prejudice patent owner.

Patent owner disagreed. It argued that because the new exhibits were directed to patent owner’s evidentiary objections, that material should be treated as supplemental evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) for which the board should consider later if there remained an admissibility dispute.  Relying on Nokia of America Corp. v. General Access Solutions, Ltd., IPR2023-01416, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. June 25, 2024) (“Nokia”)—a non-precedential decision in which the PTAB denied a motion to submit supplemental information relating to public accessibility of a reference—patent owner further argued that allowing supplementation would unfairly bolster arguments that were available to petitioner at the time of filing and should have been included in the petition. Patent owner also criticized petitioner’s motion for failing to explain why this information was not provided in the petition, and that petitioner’s delay in submitting this information was prejudicial.

The PTAB was unpersuaded by patent owner’s arguments and, therefore, granted petitioner’s motion to submit supplemental expert testimony concerning the availability of Kikkawa and Kim references.  In so holding, the PTAB observed that patent owner failed to identify any rule prohibiting a party from serving supplemental information in view of evidentiary objections and patent owner had not put forth any indication that the proffered evidence would be used by petitioner for purposes other than supplementing the record about public accessibility and the reliability of its challenged expert declaration. The PTAB also found that this proceeding was distinguishable from Nokia because, among other things, the petition did not ignore glaring inconsistencies regarding the reference’s publication date. In the PTAB’s view, it did not appear that petitioner was attempting to change the merits of its petition or accompanying evidence. The PTAB found that the facts were better aligned with Palo Alto Network, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., IPR2013-00369, Paper 37 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2014)—a case in which the PTAB granted a petitioner’s motion to submit supplemental information regarding public accessibility notwithstanding the patent owner contending that petitioner failed to explain why it did not submit that information at the time of filing the petition. Finally, the PTAB reasoned there was little, if no, prejudice to patent owner who already had the supplemental information in its possession and would have sufficient time to address those exhibits before its patent owner response was due.

In granting petitioner’s motion, the PTAB clarified that it was not reaching the question of whether the supplemental information is admissible, and any such admissibility challenges can be brought under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64

Practice Tip: Where a patent owner has challenged the availability and accessibility of prior art references, including through evidentiary objections regarding the reliability of expert opinions, the petitioner may be permitted to submit supplemental expert testimony directed to those challenges. A petitioner should anticipate arguments in opposition contending that the petitioner improperly used 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a) as a “wait-and-see” opportunity to bolster and refine its arguments later in the proceeding. Although the PTAB noted § 42.123(a) does not require a petitioner to explain why information was not provided when it filed the petition, conspicuous issues absent from the petition will be scrutinized. 

In conclusion, section 42.123(a) remains a viable option for petitioners to submit supplemental information, including expert testimony on the accessibility and availability of prior art references. It remains critically important, however, for petitioners to give careful thought and attention when preparing a petition as § 42.123(a) is not a vehicle to change the merits of a case or to permit the withholding of known information that should have been included in the petition. 

Inergy Technology, Inc. v. Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd., IPR2024-00094, Paper 14 (P.T.A.B. July 19, 2024)

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.