Issue Ten: PTAB Trial Tracker

by Goodwin


Board Curtails Use of Sovereign Immunity Defense to Avoid IPR 

In Ericsson, Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, an expanded panel denied Patent Owner Regents of the University of Minnesota’s motions to dismiss several IPRs based on a claim of sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment. The Board held that while sovereign immunity can be invoked in an IPR, here the Regents had waived its immunity by filing an action in federal court alleging infringement of the patents at issue in the IPRs. The Board noted that just as a state as plaintiff is deemed to have consented to the defendant’s filing of compulsory counterclaims, it is reasonable to view a state that files a patent infringement suit as having consented to the filing of an IPR.  The Board further found that allowing a patent owner to selectively assert its 11th Amendment immunity to prevent a petitioner from obtaining the benefits of an IPR would result in substantial unfairness and inconsistency. Administrative Patent Judge Bisk filed a concurrence, noting that allowing a state to secure monopoly rights from the Patent Office, while simultaneously foreclosing Patent Office reappraisal of that decision via IPR, “would thwart ‘the important public interest in permitting full and free competition in the use of ideas which are in reality a part of the public domain.’” (IPR2017-01186, Paper 14, PTAB Dec. 19, 2017, concurrence at 3 (quoting Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653, 670 (1969).)

Takeaway:  This decision may serve to dampen enthusiasm for deals designed to shield patents from PTAB review by taking advantage of a party’s sovereign immunity. Succeeding Board panels are likely to follow the rationale set out by this expanded panel, and find that sovereign entities such as states and Native American tribes that have asserted a patent in a court are not immune to patent review by the PTAB. 

Board Institutes IPR on a “Serial Petition,” Differentiating Facts From General Plastic

Just a few weeks after the Board issued a precedential decision regarding factors for evaluating institution of “serial petitions” (see PTAB Trial Tracker Issue 9, discussing General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357), the Board instituted review of a petition on two patent claims, despite having denied review of those same claims in an earlier petition filed by the same petitioner. In the first IPR, the Board denied institution because petitioner failed to establish the printed publication status of its cited prior art, despite having submitted a declaration that attempted to qualify the reference as a printed publication. In the second IPR, petitioner relied on a different combination of prior art. The Board noted that in the first petition, petitioner’s reliance on the prior art was “not unreasonable,” especially in light of petitioner’s attempt to support its argument with a declaration. The Board further found that because it had not construed the claims or analyzed the merits of the obviousness challenge in the first petition, the petitioner did not rely on the Board’s analysis as a “roadmap” to improve its second petition. (Panduit Corp. v. CCS Tech., Inc., IPR2017-01323, Paper 8, PTAB Nov. 8, 2017.)

Takeaway:  This case demonstrates one scenario in which a petitioner may be able to successfully bring a second challenge to a single patent. Here, one key to institution was that the second petition did not rely in any way on any filings from the first IPR. While this case may prove to be an outlier, it illustrates that petitioners may have a shot at having a second petition instituted, so long as the second petition is sufficiently distinct from the first.

Board Issues Guidance on Motions to Amend and New Standard Operating Procedure for Remanded Cases

On November 21, 2017, following the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, the Board issued its Guidance on Motions to Amend in view of Aqua Products.  As acknowledged in the Guidance, the Federal Circuit’s decision reversed the Board’s practice of placing the burden of persuasion with respect to showing patentability of proposed amended claims on the patent owner.  (Guidance at 1-2; see also PTAB Trial Tracker Issue 9.) The Guidance illustrates the Board’s intention to no longer place the burden on patent owner, but rather to “determine whether the substitute claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence based on the entirety of the record, including any opposition made by the petitioner.” (Guidance at p. 2.) The Guidance states that otherwise, “practice and procedure” before the Board will generally not change. (Id.)  The Guidance indicates that patent owners must still meet the applicable requirements for motions to amend, including setting forth written description support, support for the benefit of the asserted filing date, and responding to the grounds of unpatentability involved in the trial.
The Board also recently disseminated its Standard Operating Procedure 9, which describes the procedures to be followed when the Federal Circuit remands a case to the PTAB. The SOP sets forth a goal to issue decisions on remanded cases within six months of the Federal Circuit’s mandate. The SOP provides guidance to the parties on what to do in the event of remand and what issues to be prepared to raise with the Board.  In deciding whether to authorize additional briefing, the Board will consider whether the parties already had an adequate opportunity to address the issues raised by the remand. The SOP indicates that a change in the law or new or revised claim construction not previously considered may lead to additional briefing. It further indicates that in most cases, it will not be necessary to re-open the evidentiary record to new testimony or documents, and an additional oral hearing will not be authorized. The SOP provides default procedures for common remand scenarios.

Takeaway:  The motion to amend guidance does little to move the needle on motions to amend. Although the Board acknowledged that Aqua Products changed allocation of the burden of proof, the Board has not otherwise changed its practices and procedures on motions to amend. Thus it remains to be seen whether Aqua Products will have any appreciable impact on the motion to amend practice. As for the remand SOP, the document sets out the Board’s expectations regarding timing, additional briefing, and acceptance of additional evidence under a variety of common scenarios, which should provide parties with some predictability regarding how the Board will handle remanded cases.

Use an Employee as an Expert Witness at Your Own Risk

In Campbell Soup Company v. Gamon Plus, IPR2017-00087, the Board granted Petitioner’s motion to enter a protective order that differed from the default protective order by preventing Patent Owner’s expert declarant, who was also Patent Owner’s CEO, from accessing the confidential materials. (Paper 50, PTAB Dec. 13, 2017.)  The Board stated that Patent Owner’s reliance on a party witness put “Patent Owner in a difficult position because documents that otherwise might have been accessible by a neutral expert” are not accessible to Patent Owner’s CEO. (Paper 50 at p. 3.)  The Board explained that “Patent Owner chose to rely upon a party witness and, thus, under these circumstances, must bear the consequences of that decision.” (Id.) The Board’s decision to not allow Patent Owner’s expert to access the confidential materials also impacted Patent Owner’s request to submit testimonial evidence in an authorized sur-reply, because the expert “has not seen the documents and any potential assistance he might provide is tenuous at best.” (Id. at p. 4.) 

Takeaway:  This case illustrates a danger associated with using an employee as an expert witness. Even where an employee is required as a fact witness, parties should consider using a different witness as an expert.

Board Refuses to Terminate IPR Following Parties’ Settlement; Issues Final Written Decision 

In Rubicon Communications, LP v. Lego A/S, IPR2016-01187, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate after the oral hearing and just a few days before the statutory deadline for the final written decision. As to timing of the motion, the parties explained that they were only able to settle after an extended mediation session with a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the parallel district court litigation, which occurred the day prior to filing their motion. The Board denied the motion to terminate, and indicated that it would issue the Final Written Decision. The Board explained that at this juncture in the proceeding, the “public’s interest in the status of the challenged claims of each patent is at its peak.” (Paper 100 at p.2, PTAB Dec. 15, 2017.)  It also indicated that it had already deliberated and decided the merits of the proceeding before the parties filed their motion. (Id. at p. 3.)

TakeawayDuring the recent Supreme Court oral argument in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, counsel for Oil States said that she was aware of only four instances where the PTAB has proceeded to a final written decision after the parties had settled. (No. 16-712, Transcript at p. 8.) This case raises that count to five. As we’ve discussed previously (see PTAB Trial Tracker Issue 7) and as this case illustrates, it is good practice to settle as early in an IPR as possible to avoid the possibility that the Board continues to a final written decision despite the parties’ settlement. This case also demonstrates that if parties plan to participate in mediation in a parallel litigation, they should be mindful of scheduling the mediation well in advance of final written decision deadline.

District Court Proceedings Terminated After Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Unpatentability Rulings

Two different district courts recently dismissed infringement litigation following Federal Circuit affirmances of PTAB Final Written Decisions finding claims unpatentable, but based on different rationales. In B.E. Tech. LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 12-02769-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn. Dec. 20, 2017), defendant sought judgment on the pleadings and dismissal of the case with prejudice. Instead, the district court dismissed the case as moot, noting that a party whose patent claim is invalidated in a Board proceeding no longer has a viable cause of action in lawsuits that party brought before the claim was invalidated. The court noted that collateral estoppel did not apply, because the PTAB and district court use different burdens of proof for determining invalidity and different standards of claim construction.  

In another case, C-Cation Techs. LLC v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., No. 14-00059-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2017), defendants argued that plaintiff/patent owner was collaterally estopped from pursuing its claims in district court based on either the PTAB’s final written decision or the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of that decision. Magistrate Payne found these arguments reasonable, and noted that plaintiff did not dispute whether collateral estoppel applied. Accordingly, Magistrate Payne lifted the stay and recommended that the action be dismissed with prejudice.

Takeaway:  These cases demonstrate the value to patent challengers of pursuing parallel proceedings in the PTAB. In both cases, the patent challenger was able to terminate an infringement suit after obtaining a Federal Circuit decision affirming the PTAB’s cancellation of the asserted patents.


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.

© Goodwin | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Goodwin on:

Readers' Choice 2017
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:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.