Page limits, believe it or not, continue to be an important issue for validity challenges at the Patent Office – how does a petitioner, that has lots of prior art to assert, deal with the 60-page limit on inter partes review requests? For Ford, Honda, BMW and Nissan, it was to file five separate IPR requests against a single car-display patent owned by Vehicle Operation Technologies (see inter partes review request No. (7)). For Motorola it was to rely on the old stand-by, ex parte reexamination. Last Monday it filed a 330-page request against an Intellectual Ventures patent (see ex parte request No. (4)). For good measure, Motorola filed ex parte requests against two other IV patents (see ex parte request Nos. (5) & (6)).
An unknown party requested ex parte reexamination of AbbVie’s recently issued U.S. Patent No. 8,674,112 that claims a crystalline polymorph of ritonavir (see ex parte reexamination request No. (13). Ritonavir is known for inhibiting of HIV protease. IPRs continue to be popular, but only ex parte reexamination affords anonymity to the requester.
Automobile patents ranked highly in terms of the number of new IPR filings last week. Ford requested inter partes review of three hybrid vehicle patents owned by Paice and Abell (see inter partes review Request Nos. (9), (10) & (11)). Paice has sued Ford and Hyundai for infringement of the patents in Maryland. And Chrysler and Nissan teamed up to attack three Norman IP Holdings patents (see inter partes review Request Nos. (3), (6) & (7)).
Apple filed eleven post-grant review petitions against six Smartflash data storage and access patents (see covered business method review Request Nos. (1) through (6)).
Scott Daniels | April 7, 2014
Most judges are reluctant to permit expert testimony on the state of the law – they consider themselves to be perfectly capable of understanding and applying the law without such assistance. This view is embodied in the Patent Office rules for inter partes review proceedings: “[t]estimony on United States patent law or patent examination practice will not be admitted.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).
The APJs recently indicated some flexibility on this point, however, in Amneal Pharmaceuticals v. Supernicus Pharmaceuticals (Paper 41, IPR2013-00368). There, the Patent Owner filed an expert declaration of a former Patent Office official, explaining why certain documents at the Patent Office would not have been reasonably accessible to the public and therefore not prior art against the challenged claims.
In a conference call, the Petitioner attacked the admissibility of the declaration. The APJs disagreed, stating that the declaration “is not directed entirely to expert testimony on patent examination practice. Rather, the declaration testimony appears to tether the discussion of the relevant patent examination practice closely to the facts of this case for the purpose of providing context. The Board takes the view that the exhibit is not inadmissible under 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” (Emphasis added).
In a twist the APJs then invited the Petitioner to file a written motion to exclude the declaration. So perhaps the last word on this issue has not yet been spoken. Still, the message for practitioners is that expert testimony on legal issues is possible so long as it is limited to analysis of the specific facts in the case under consideration. More general comments about the state of the law or Patent Office practice are likely to be excluded.
Scott Daniels | April 3, 2014
In infringement actions with a pending parallel reexamination or review of the patent-in-issue, it is customary for trial judges to prohibit an accused infringer from informing the jury that the patent is under reexamination or review at the Patent Office. Almost uniformly, judges believe that such information about parallel activity at the Patent Office would confuse or unduly prejudice the jury. In an in limine ruling this Monday, Judge Larry Hicks followed this customary approach, but then went a step further. Server Technology, Inc. v. American Power Conversion Corporation (3:06-cv-00698 (D. Nev.)).Next Page »