Tag Archives: Valve Corporation

2019 PTAB Year In Review Part IV: THE PRECEDENTIAL OPINION PANEL (POP)

The Precedential Opinion Panel (POP), formed in September 2018, began rendering opinions in 2019. The POP is intended to provide two main functions: rehear matters in pending trials and appeals of exceptional importance; and assist the Director in determining whether a previously issued decision should be designated as precedential or informative. Its decisions are binding authority on the PTAB. In 2019, the POP issued 3 decisions, designated 8 decisions as precedential, and designated another 13 decisions informative. The three POP decisions are summarized below.

In Proppant Express Investments LLC v. Oren Technologies LLC, IPR2018-00914 (March 2019; Paper 38, precedential), the POP addressed discretionary joinder under §315(c). The POP held that (a) a petitioner may be joined to a proceeding in which it is already a named party, and (b) new issues may be added to an existing proceeding, irrespective of whether the petitioner is already a named party. The POP also advised that the one-year time bar under 35 USC §315(b) is one of several factors to consider when exercising its discretion.

In GoPro Inc. v. 360Heroes Inc., IPR2018-01754 (August 2019; Paper 38, precedential), the POP addressed the one-year time bar under § 315(b). It concluded that § 315(b)’s language, “served with a complaint alleging infringement” is plain and unambiguous. Thus, the service of a pleading alleging patent infringement triggers the one-year time period for filing an IPR petition under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), regardless of whether the serving party lacked standing to sue or the pleading was otherwise deficient.

Notably, six days after the POP issued the GoPro decision, it also designated as precedential the decision in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc. IPR2018-01511 (PTAB Jan. 2019; Paper 11, designated precedential August 2019).. In that case, the PTAB held that that § 315(a)(1) bars institution of an inter partes review of a patent in which petitioner voluntarily dismisses its earlier civil action challenging the validity of that patent prior to filing the petition.  Continue reading →

PTAB INCREASINGLY USING ITS DISCRETION TO DECLINE IPR INSTITUTIONS

By Reza Mollaaghababa

Under 35 U.S.C. §314(a), the PTAB has discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review. Cuozzo Speed Techs, LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (”[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion”).  The PTAB is increasingly relying on its discretion to deny institution of IPR challenges to patents.  In some cases, the PTAB has denied institution of a follow-on petition that presented substantially similar grounds as those presented in an earlier petition, even when filed by a different petitioner.  In other cases, the PTAB has denied institution of an IPR challenge reasoning that institution in view of the advanced stage of a parallel district court trial would not be efficient use of the Board’s and the court’s resources. In other cases, the PTAB has denied institution in cases where it deemed only a small subset of petitioner’s arguments would be likely to establish invalidity of challenged claims. Continue reading →