PTAB/USPTO Update - May 2023

PTAB/USPTO Update - May 2023

Client Alert

Authors

USPTO News

  • On April 20, the USPTO announced an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking public input regarding potential PTAB reforms, including proposed changes to discretionary institution practices, petition word limits, and settlement practices for America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
  • The USPTO announced that it will host the Green Energy Innovation Expo on May 17 at the USPTO headquarters
  • On April 27, Director Kathi Vidal delivered a statement before the U.S. House of Representatives to discuss the operations, programs, and initiatives of the USPTO
  • On April 24, the USPTO announced the recipients of the 2022 Patent Pro Bono Achievement Certificate. The recipients are listed on the USPTO’s Practitioner Recognition page and Firm Recognition Page.
  • The USPTO announced a new Trademarks for Humanity awards competition to recognize brand owners who are using trademarks to help solve humanitarian challenges.  Applications will be accepted until July 14 or until 200 applications are  received, whichever occurs first.

Notices, Guidance, and Requests

Final Rules

  •  There are no new final rules

Interim Rules

  • There are no new interim rules.

Proposed Rules

PTAB Decisions

  • New Precedential PTAB Decisions
    • There are no new precedential PTAB decisions.
  • New Informative PTAB Decisions
    • There are no new informative PTAB decisions.

New Requests for POP Review

  • Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc. (IPR2022-01434) [Patent Owner requesting POP review of Institution Decision, seeking clarification that “Becton, Dickinson factors (a) [(the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination)] and (b) [(the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination)] relate only to subpart [A] [(whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office)] and factor (d) [(the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which petitioner relies on the prior art)] relates only to subpart [B] [(whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office)].]
  • Facebook Inc. v. Express Mobile, Inc. (IPR2021 -01455 and -01456) [Patent Owner requesting POP review of Final Written Decisions, presenting the questions of (1) “Whether a genuine dispute regarding the scope of a claim term in the context of an obviousness ground must be resolved before the final written decision of the Board can resolve the obviousness question,” and (2) “whether four or more references can be combined to create an obviousness rejection where those references contain multiple contrary teachings that are neither filed by the petitioner with the Board nor addressed by the final written decision.”]
  • Roku, Inc. v. Intent IQ, LLC (IPR2022-01315) [Petitioner requesting POP review of Institution Decision, presenting the questions of (1) “Whether the Board may in institution decisions, consistent with its judicial role and requirements of due process—immune from appellate review—effectively assume for itself the role of expert witness, determining what a POSITA would have understood is taught by an asserted reference, in contrast to expert testimony, when the Board elevates its own understanding of the reference over the testimony of an expert in the field?” and (2) “What safeguards has the Board provided here under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to ensure that the agency’s evidentiary determinations are supported by substantial evidence, particularly in view of the Federal Circuit’s requirement in Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 22 F. 4th 1369, 1377-79 (Fed. Cir. 2022) that an expert must at least have ordinary skill in the art? How is the Board’s reliance on mere framing of the applied reference by Patent Owner’s counsel—an unqualified expert—over the unopposed testimony of an expert in the field not an abuse of discretion akin to that in Kyocera?”)]
  • Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC [Petitioner requesting POP review of Institution Decision, presenting the question of “[w]hether it is an abuse of the Board’s discretion under § 325(d) to deny institution when: (1) the Board in a prior IPR of a parent patent issued a final written decision finding the same art at issue in the present Petition rendered the claims of the parent patent unpatentable; (2) the prior final written decision and one of the five references at issue in the present Petition had been submitted in an IDS and initialed by the Examiner, but otherwise neither the prior final written decision nor any of the art at issue in the present Petition were discussed during prosecution; and (3) the Board elected not to conduct an error analysis under Step 2 of Advanced Bionics, declining to consider either the strength of the Petition’s grounds or the Petition’s evidence on the lack of material differences between the challenged claims and the claims of the parent patent that the Board found unpatentable in a prior IPR.”]

Authors

More From This Series

Notice

Unless you are an existing client, before communicating with WilmerHale by e-mail (or otherwise), please read the Disclaimer referenced by this link.(The Disclaimer is also accessible from the opening of this website). As noted therein, until you have received from us a written statement that we represent you in a particular manner (an "engagement letter") you should not send to us any confidential information about any such matter. After we have undertaken representation of you concerning a matter, you will be our client, and we may thereafter exchange confidential information freely.

Thank you for your interest in WilmerHale.