PTAB Precedential Decision: Compelling Merits Assessment Not at Play Unless Fintiv Factors 1-5 Favor Discretionary Denial

April 7, 2023

Reading Time : 3 min

USPTO Director Katherine Vidal recently issued a precedential decision making clear that the PTAB must first determine whether Fintiv factors 1-5 favor discretionary denial of a petition before considering whether the unpatentability challenge satisfies the compelling-merits standard. This decision further clarifies certain instructions set forth in a June 21, 2022, USPTO Memorandum titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceeding with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Guidance Memo”).

In this case, the Board instituted inter partes review of a patent disclosing a distributed antenna system that assigns subsets of radio resources. In its decision, the Board declined to exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution. The Board explained that its refusal was based on the petition satisfying the compelling-merits standard for institution. This consideration is reflected in Fintiv factor 6. To support its determination, the Board pointed to the analysis earlier in its decision regarding each of the petitioner’s asserted grounds. The Board did not address any of the other Fintiv factors, relying on an instruction in the Guidance Memo stating that when the PTAB “determines that the information presented at the institution stage presents a compelling unpatentability challenge, that determination alone demonstrates that the PTAB should not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.” The Director then ordered sua sponte review of the Board’s institution decision.

Director review was initiated to address how the Board arrived at its compelling-merits conclusion and the sufficiency of its reasoning. To begin, the Director recognized that the Guidance Memo’s instruction could be read to allow the PTAB to substitute a compelling-merits determination for a Fintiv analysis. But, as the Director explained, that was not her intention. Rather, the intended procedure was for the PTAB to first analyze Fintiv factors 1-5 before considering whether the petition meets the compelling-merits standard. The Director clarified that the PTAB shall apply the compelling-merits standard if its analysis of the other Fintiv factors favor discretionary denial. Here, the Board had skipped the first five factors altogether.

Citing her October 4, 2022, precedential OpenSky decision (summarized here), the Director reiterated that the compelling-merits standard is higher than the reasonable likelihood standard for IPR institution, and the PTAB must provide sufficient reasoning for its determination. The Board in this case had merely pointed to its analysis under the lower institution threshold to demonstrate that the petition had satisfied the compelling-merits standard. The Director found that to be insufficient. Therefore, she vacated the Board’s institution decision and remanded the proceeding for the Board to revisit its Fintiv analysis and reasoning in view of the Director’s guidance.

On remand, the Board updated its institution decision to include a 25-page analysis of its findings with respect to each of the Fintiv factors. The Board began by explaining that factor 1 was neutral while factors 2-5 favored or somewhat favored discretionary denial. Because the Board found that the first five Fintiv factors favored denial, it then assessed whether the petition met the compelling-merits requirement for institution. In its assessment, the Board explained that the petitioner had set forth a compelling unpatentability challenge to claim 1 under Ground 1. The Board detailed how it determined limitation-by-limitation that it was highly likely that the petitioner would prevail in its challenge.

Practice Tips: The Director has made clear that the PTAB shall not apply the compelling-merits standard for institution if Fintiv factors 1-5 do not favor discretionary denial. And if the PTAB reaches the compelling-merits question, it must then sufficiently explain the reasoning for its determination. Petitioners should expect to receive a more thorough assessment of all six factors in institution decisions as panels comply with the Director’s Guidance Memo and recent precedential decisions. This case serves as a reminder that Fintiv remains an important consideration in whether panels institute review, and parties should consider carefully the extent to which they argue the Fintiv factors in their papers moving forward.

CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023); CommScope Technologies LLC et al v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR2022-01242, Paper 24 (PTAB Mar. 17, 2023).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

November 5, 2024

The Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s fee award because the district court considered certain information that was not relevant to the question of whether plaintiff’s case was exceptional. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that only those “red flags” that related to the successful Section 101 defense, which served as the basis for the district court’s grant of summary judgment, could be used to show the case was fatally flawed.   

...

Read More

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 10, 2024

In a patent case containing a variety of federal and state law claims, the District of Massachusetts retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims even after all the federal law claims were dismissed.

...

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

© 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.