USPTO Director Vacates and Remands PTAB’s Institution Decision Over Insufficient Explanation of Findings

April 25, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

The USPTO Director vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision denying institution of inter partes review for not addressing alleged differences between references in the petition and those considered during prosecution. The Director determined that the board did not sufficiently explain its findings and remanded for further proceedings.

Petitioner filed IPR petitions challenging three related patents and the patent owner responded with preliminary responses arguing that the petitions should be denied on the basis that “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 325 U.S.C. § 325(d); see Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (providing a two-part framework for discretionary denial on this basis). Petitioner’s references in the IPRs were not identical to those previously presented to the Office and petitioner alleged material differences between the two sets of references.

The board sided with the patent owner and denied institution of all three IPRs without disagreeing with, or finding immaterial, petitioner’s alleged differences between the IPR and prosecution references. For example, in one IPR, the board simply stated that it was “unpersuaded” regarding petitioner’s contentions, but did not provide explanation or analysis to support its conclusion. Petitioner requested Director Review, arguing that the board did not address the substance of the arguments and, instead, improperly “focused on the similarity of the claim limitations covered by the references, rather than on assessing the…content of the references.”

The Director determined that the board failed to adequately explain its analysis of whether substantially the same prior art or substantially the same arguments were previously presented (i.e., the first prong of the Advanced Bionics framework). In particular, the board did not disagree with petitioner’s explanation of the alleged differences in the references, it did not find those differences to be immaterial, and it did not provide a sufficient comparison of what was previously considered to what was submitted by the petitioner in the IPRs. The Director explained that the board must address the alleged differences to resolve whether substantially the same references were previously considered and simply comparing individual elements of the references is insufficient without more analysis. Similarly, relying on vague or high-level similarities cannot substitute for detailed reasoning, such as identifying substantive and material overlap between the references or determining that the petitioner’s and examiner’s arguments rely on the same rationale.

Practice Tip: If references or arguments in a petition are similar to ones previously before the Office, petitioners should clearly identify substantive differences to distinguish the petition over earlier proceedings. Patent owners seeking an institution denial based on the similarity of references or arguments should provide examples demonstrating the overlap, or immateriality of any alleged differences, between references. Conversely, should the board not provide sufficient explanation of its findings under the first prong of the Advanced Bionics framework, petitioners would be well advised to seek to vacate a decision denying institution.

Nokia of America Corp. v. Alexander Soto, IPR2023-00680, -00681, -00682, Paper No. 18 (Vidal Mar. 28, 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.