Withholding Data That PTAB Would Deem Relevant to Patentability Supports Adverse Judgment in an IPR

July 19, 2023

Reading Time : 2 min

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted Petitioner’s motions to sanction Patent Owner for failure to meet its duty of candor and fair dealing in five related inter partes review  proceedings. The PTAB found that Patent Owner had improperly withheld the results of scientific testing that was material to the challenged patent claims.

The challenged patents relate to methods and compositions for killing pathogens and isolating populations of nucleic acids from biological samples. In its decisions to institute inter partes review, the PTAB rejected what it considered Patent Owner’s overly narrow construction of the terms “kill pathogens” and “not degrade nucleic acids,” construing each term to have its plain meaning. In the patent owner response and motion to amend, patent owner relied on test data and its proposed constructions to argue that the primary prior art reference did not anticipate the challenged claims.

Petitioner deposed Patent Owner’s testing witnesses, but Patent Owner instructed those witnesses not to answer questions about undisclosed testing on the basis of attorney work product protection. Petitioner disagreed with Patent Owner’s instruction that such underlying data were protected, and the parties held a conference call with the PTAB. The PTAB authorized additional briefing on the issue and ultimately ordered limited additional discovery, including production of any relevant inconsistent experimental results and additional deposition time for questioning about undisclosed testing. Petitioner discovered that Patent Owner had withheld data related to additional testing from the same time period that contradicted the testing on which Patent Owner had relied.

The PTAB issued a final written decision finding the challenged claims unpatentable and, on the same day, issued an order granting the sanction of judgment in the trial as to all challenged claims in the five IPRs. The PTAB explained that it was improper for Patent Owner to rely on its proposed (narrow) claim construction to limit the scope of its obligatory disclosures to the Office and Petitioner. Although the PTAB’s claim construction in its institution decision was preliminary, the PTAB clearly indicated the scope of what it deemed relevant to patentability in these proceedings. And ultimately, the PTAB found that the testing was relevant under either construction. By withholding these results until compelled by the Board, the Patent Owner had failed to comply with its duty of candor and good faith. However, the Board stopped short of ordering Patent Owner to compensate Petitioner, including by paying attorney fees. The Board reasoned that invalidation of the challenged claims would sufficiently deter such misconduct, while a monetary penalty would not.

On June 12, 2023, in each of the five IPR proceedings, the Director granted sua sponte review of both the Board’s final written decision and the order granting sanctions. As of the writing of this article, Director review remains pending.

Practice Tip: The duty of candor in a PTAB proceeding requires a party to disclose data that are material to patentability. At a minimum, this includes data that a party might consider not relevant under its own theory of the case, but that could be relevant under a broader theory of patentability, particularly where the PTAB’s institution decision expressly contemplates such a broader scope.

Spectrum Solutions LLC v. Longhorn Vaccines & Diagnostics, LLC, IPR2021-00847, Paper 107, IPR2021-00850, Paper 111, IPR2021-00854, Paper 110, IPR2021-00857, Paper 108, IPR2021-00860, Paper 109 (PTAB May 3, 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.