IPR Decisions Are to Rely On The Adversarial Process

Troutman Pepper
Contact

Troutman Pepper

Hunting Titan, Inc. v. Dynaenergetics Europe GMBH, IPR2018-00600 (July 6, 2020)
Designated Precedential on July 6, 2020

Petitioner Hunting Titan challenged Patent Owner Dynaenergetics’ claims based upon anticipation and obviousness. During the trial, Patent Owner filed a motion to present substitute claims. Petitioner opposed the substitute claims, but only presented arguments based upon obviousness.

The PTAB trial panel found that the original claims were anticipated, and also denied the Motion to Amend based upon anticipation, which was an argument not made by the Petitioner. Patent Owner sought a rehearing and review by the Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) on two issues:

  1. Under what circumstances and at what time during an inter partes review may the Board raise a ground of unpatentability that a petitioner did not advance or insufficiently developed against substitute claims proposed in a motion to amend?
  2. If the Board raises such a ground of unpatentability, whether the Board must provide the parties notice and an opportunity to respond to the ground of unpatentability before the Board makes a final determination.

With regard to the first question, the POP reasoned that IPRs are not an agency-led, inquisitorial process, but rather an adversarial process that relies on the parties to frame the issues. Slip op. at 7,11, 19. The POP determined that although the PTAB had the ability to raise issues, those circumstance should be rare. Slip op. at 9, 13. Rare circumstances include a petitioner who stops participating in a proceeding or does not oppose a motion to amend. Slip op. at 12-13.

Turning to the second question, the POP considered the type of notice required. The POP rejected the argument that the anticipation attack against the original claims provided notice that anticipation could be raised against the substitute claims. Slip. Op. at 14. The POP reasoned that due process required notice of how the prior art applied to the newly-added limitations in the substitute claims, and stated that the PTAB could request additional briefing or require that the parties be prepared to discuss how the prior art applies to the substitute claims. Slip op. at 15.

Ultimately, the POP granted the Motion to Amend, and determined that the Petitioner had not proven that the substitute claims were obvious. Slip op. at 26.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Troutman Pepper | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Troutman Pepper
Contact
more
less

Troutman Pepper on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.