This document provides an overview of the pros and cons of challenging patent validity in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) versus district courts under the America Invents Act (AIA). It discusses the various post-grant review procedures available at the PTAB, including inter partes review, post-grant review, and covered business method patent review. Statistics on filing and outcome rates for AIA trials are presented. Factors to consider when deciding between the PTAB and district courts for a validity challenge are outlined, such as the nature of the decision maker, evidentiary standards, discovery opportunities, costs, and timing.

1. Renaissance IP Law Group
PTAB
vs.
District
Courts:
Pros
&
Cons
Ma#hew
C.
Phillips
Kevin
B.
Laurence
Renaissance
IP
Law
Group
LLP
February
11,
2016
Patexia
Webinar
1

2. Renaissance IP Law Group
Agenda
• Tools
for
Challenging
Patent
Validity
• Review
of
AIA
Trial
Procedures
• AIA
Trial
StaMsMcs
• Choosing
a
Forum
to
Challenge
Validity
2

3. Renaissance IP Law Group
Tools
for
Challenging
Patent
Validity
3

4. Renaissance IP Law Group
Tools
for
Challenging
US
Patents
(Pre-­‐AIA
Patents)
Other
Basis
(§§
101,
112)
Prior
Art
(§§
102,
103)
Inter
Partes
Review
Ex
Parte
Reexam
LiHgaHon
Printed
PublicaMon
Charged
with
Infringement
of
Bus.
Meth.
Pat.
Covered
Business
Method
Patent
Review
at USPTO
4

5. Renaissance IP Law Group
Tools
for
Patent
Challengers
(AIA
FITF
Patents
UnHl
9/16/20)
Inter
Partes
Review
Outside
IniMal
9-­‐Mo.
Window
Other
Basis
(§§
101,112)
Prior
Art
(§§
102,
103)
Ex
Parte
Reexam
LiHgaHon
Printed
PublicaMon
Covered
Business
Method
Patent
Review
Post-­‐Grant
Review
Inside
IniMal
9-­‐Mo.
Window
Charged
with
Infringement
of
Bus.
Meth.
Pat.
Outside
IniMal
9-­‐Mo.
Window
at USPTO 5

6. Renaissance IP Law Group
Tools
for
Challenging
US
Patents
(AIA
FITF
Patents
ARer
9/16/20)
Inter
Partes
Review
Outside
IniMal
9-­‐Mo.
Window
Other
Basis
(§§
101,
112)
Prior
Art
(§§
102,
103)
Ex
Parte
Reexam
LiHgaHon
Printed
PublicaMon
Post-­‐Grant
Review
Inside
IniMal
9-­‐Mo.
Window
at USPTO
6

7. Renaissance IP Law Group
Review
of
AIA
Trial
Procedure
7

8. Renaissance IP Law Group
Full
Timeline
for
Review
Proceeding
≤
6
months
~2.5
years
Prior
to
Trial
≤ 12
months
Trial
~13
months
Rehearing
&
Appeal
8

9. Renaissance IP Law Group
Pre-­‐Trial
Proceedings
Prior
to
Trial
Trial
Rehearing
&
Appeal
NoMce
of
Filing
Date
Review
?
YES
PeMMon
3
mo.
NO
1-­‐2
wks.
Non-­‐InsMtuMon
Decision
Preliminary
Response
up
to
3
mo.
InsMtuMon
Decision
9

10. Renaissance IP Law Group
IniMal
Conference
Call
Final
Wri#en
Decision
InsMtuMon
Decision
(Order)
Appeal
CerMficate
Se#lement
Agreement
Oral
Hearing
Patent
Owner
Discovery
Appeal
Procedure
for
Trial
(Without
MoHon
to
Amend)
PeMMoner
Discovery
MoMons
Reply
Response
?
DD1 DD2
DD4-DD6 DD7
10

11. Renaissance IP Law Group
Trial
Timeline
(Current
Typical)
Owner
Discovery
Period
PeMMoner
Discovery
Period
Owner
Discovery
Period
MoMons
to
Exclude
Evidence,
Etc.
(DD4-­‐DD6)
1
mo.
2
mos.
2
mos.
11

12. Renaissance IP Law Group
AIA
Trial
StaHsHcs
12

13. Renaissance IP Law Group
Review
PeHHon
Filings
(as
of
Dec.
31,
2015)
1
10
100
1000
10000
IPR
CBM
PGR
IPR
CBM
PGR
IPR
CBM
PGR
IPR
CBM
PGR
IPR
CBM
PGR
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015
FY
2016
FY
2012
13

14. Renaissance IP Law Group
Review
PeHHon
Filings
by
Technology
(FY2014-­‐FY2016
through
Dec.
31,
2015)
Electrical/
Computer
62%
Mechanical
&
Bus.
Methods
23%
Chemical
6%
Bio/Pharma
9%
Design
0%
14

15. Renaissance IP Law Group
Trial
InsHtuHon
Rate
(as
of
Dec.
16,
2015)
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
IPR
CBM
PGR
IPR
CBM
PGR
IPR
CBM
PGR
IPR
CBM
PGR
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015
FY
2016
15

16. Renaissance IP Law Group
IPR
Survival
Rate
(DisposiHon
of
Challenged
Claims)
(as
of
Dec.
31,
2015)
Not
Subject
to
Trial
57%
Sebled
13%
Canceled
or
Disclaimed
by
Patent
Owner
5%
Found
Unpatentable
21%
Found
Patentable
4%
16

17. Renaissance IP Law Group
IPR
Survival
Rate
(DisposiHon
of
Claims
Subject
to
Trial)
(as
of
Dec.
31,
2015)
Sebled
31%
Canceled
or
Disclaimed
by
Patent
Owner
11%
Found
Unpatentable
49%
Found
Patentable
9%
17

18. Renaissance IP Law Group
IPR
Survival
Rate
(DisposiHon
by
FWD
Only)
(as
of
Dec.
31,
2015)
All
Claims
Unpatentable
72%
Some
Claims
Unpatentable
15%
No
Claims
Unpatentable
13%
18

19. Renaissance IP Law Group
Choosing
a
Forum
for
Challenging
Validity
19

20. Renaissance IP Law Group
Challenge
in
Court
or
PTAB?
• Assuming
Both
are
Available
for
Your
Validity
Challenge
• PotenMal
Differences
– Nature
of
decision
maker
– Claim
construcMon/interpretaMon
– EvidenMary
burdens
– Nature
of
supporMng
evidence
– Discovery
opportuniMes
and
burdens
– ParMcipaMon
rights
– Claims
frozen
or
fluid
– Number
of
arguments
that
can
pracMcally
be
made
– Effect
of
overall
equiMes
– Costs
– Timing
– Standing
requirements
– Anonymity
20

21. Renaissance IP Law Group
• Decision
Maker
(PTAB
or
Court)
– Comfort
zone
for
invalidaMng
duly
granted
patent
claims
• Comfort
reaching
a
conclusion
different
from
the
original
examiner?
• Comfort
finding
claims
obvious?
– Different
technical
acumen
• How
complex
are
your
facts?
• Is
the
conclusion
apparent
once
the
facts
are
“properly”
understood?
– Different
predilecMon
or
facility
with
legal
doctrines
• Secondary
consideraMons
of
nonobviousness
• Priority
enMtlement
• Inherent
disclosure
Challenge
in
Court
or
PTAB?
21

22. Renaissance IP Law Group
ConvenHonal
Wisdom
(Generally)
in
LiHgaHon
and
Review
Proceedings
AnHcipaHon
Obviousness
LiMgaMon
Review
Proceeding
22

23. Renaissance IP Law Group
Best
Bases
for
Aback
at
PTAB
IPR
103
>
102
PGR
PGR
101
>
103
>
102
CBM
23

24. Renaissance IP Law Group
• Claim
ConstrucMon/InterpretaMon
– PTAB
uses
broadest
reasonable
interpretaMon
(“BRI”)
– Courts
• Phillips
v.
AWH
Corp.,
415
F.3d
1303
(Fed.
Cri.
2005)
(en
banc)
• More
likely
narrow
• Less
predictable
– Is
the
prior
art
within
the
broadest
reasonable
meaning
of
the
claims
yet
different
from
the
disclosed
embodiment(s)?
Challenge
in
Court
or
PTAB?
24

25. Renaissance IP Law Group
• EvidenMary
Burdens
– Preponderance
standard
in
PTAB
– Clear-­‐and-­‐convincing
standard
in
court
– Ask
yourself:
Are
the
issues
so
close
that
the
evidenMary
burden
might
make
a
difference?
• Is
the
prior
art
arguably
ambiguous
in
its
disclosure
of
a
claim
limitaMon?
• Is
the
prior
art
status
of
the
printed
publicaMon
a
close
quesMon?
• Does
the
outcome
turn
on
disputed,
equally
reasonable
and
supported
expert
opinions?
Challenge
in
Court
or
PTAB?
25

26. Renaissance IP Law Group
• Nature
of
SupporMng
Evidence
– Federal
Rules
of
Evidence
apply
in
both
court
&
PTAB
• Rare
for
PTAB
to
exclude
evidence
– At
PTAB:
• Evidence
typically
must
be
“on
the
paper”
– Documents
– DeclaraMons
– DeposiMon
transcripts
• Rare
excepMons
for
live
tesMmony
at
oral
hearing
in
AIA
trial
– Courts
permit
all
types
of
evidence,
incl.
live
tesMmony
– Do
you
have
a
great
witness
to
bring
your
posiMons
to
life?
Challenge
in
Court
or
PTAB?
26

27. Renaissance IP Law Group
• Discovery
OpportuniMes
and
Burdens
– In
court,
discovery
is
wide
ranging
– In
PTAB,
discovery
is
very
limited
• DeposiMons
of
declarants
• AddiMonal
discovery
is
rarely
granted
– Ask
yourself:
• Do
you
need
any
discovery
from
the
patent
owner
to
prove
your
invalidity
case?
• Might
the
patent
owner
benefit
from
discovery
from
you
(e.g.,
to
prove
secondary
consideraMons
of
non-­‐obviousness
based
on
your
alleged
infringement)?
Challenge
in
Court
or
PTAB?
27

28. Renaissance IP Law Group
• ParMcipaMon
Rights
– Full
parMcipaMon
rights
in
court
– Full
parMcipaMon
rights
in
PTAB
• PeMMon
• Depose
patent
owner’s
declarants
• Reply
to
patent
owner’s
response
• Oral
argument
– ReexaminaMon,
however,
typically
offers
no
parMcipaMon
rights
aner
filing
of
request
Challenge
in
Court
or
PTAB?
28

29. Renaissance IP Law Group
• Claims
Frozen
or
Fluid
– Claims
are
frozen
in
court
– Claims
are
fluid
in
reexaminaMon
– Claims
are
essen4ally
frozen
in
review
• MoMons
to
amend
are
rarely
sought
• MoMons
to
amend
are
rarely
granted
• Reissue
and
reexaminaMon
are
other
opMons
• Any
amendment
must
be
narrowing
(except
in
broadening
reissue)
• Almost
all
amendments
trigger
intervening
rights
– Does
the
specificaMon
support
a
limitaMon
absent
from
the
prior
art
but
present
in
the
accused
device?
Challenge
in
Court
or
PTAB?
29

30. Renaissance IP Law Group
• Number
of
Arguments
– Limits
in
court
• Page
limits
• Time
limits
• PracMcal
limits
on
judge’s
paMence
&
indulgence
– Limits
in
AIA
trials
• Page
limits
• Redundancy
doctrine
• Best
to
focus
on
a
few
(1-­‐3)
well
developed
challenge
grounds
– A
mulMplicitous
approach
is
be#er
suited
for
reexaminaMon
Challenge
in
Court
or
PTAB?
30

31. Renaissance IP Law Group
• Effect
of
EquiMes
– Court
• Lines
between
issues
can
be
blurry
• Decision
maker
“takes
it
all
in”
• Juries
can
be
especially
influenced
by
overall
equity
• Juries
seem
to
be
especially
moved
by
inventors
– PTAB
• Bigger
picture
does
not
usually
come
through
• Perhaps
some
insMtuMonal
bias
against
NPEs?
Challenge
in
Court
or
PTAB?
31

32. Renaissance IP Law Group
• Timing
– One-­‐year
bar
for
IPR
• Must
file
IPR
peMMon
before
1-­‐year
anniversary
of
service
of
infringement
complaint
• No
such
bar
for
CBM
or
PGR
– No
AIA
trial
possible
aner
DJ
acMon
for
invalidity
– Stay
• Court
may
stay
liMgaMon
pending
AIA
trial
• Special,
more
liberal
stay
statute
for
CBMs
– Estoppel
• FWD
in
AIA
trial
triggers
estoppel
against
peMMoner
• IPR
&
PGR:
Scope
of
estoppel
in
court
is
validity
challenges
“raised
or
reasonably
could
have
been
raised.”
• CBM:
Scope
of
estoppel
in
court
is
just
validity
challenges
“raised.”
• Don’t
agonize
over
estoppel.
Raise
your
validity
challenges
in
the
forum
where
they
are
most
likely
to
succeed
(PTAB).
Challenge
in
Court
or
PTAB?
32

33. Renaissance IP Law Group
• Costs
– Differ
by
order(s)
of
magnitude
– LiMgaMon
>>
Review
>
ReexaminaMon
• Standing
– No
standing
requirement
to
file
review
peMMon
or
reexaminaMon
request
– But
beware
of
standing
on
appeal
• Anonymity
– Not
possible
for
liMgaMon
or
AIA
trial
– Possible
for
reexaminaMon
Challenge
in
Court
or
PTAB?
33

34. Renaissance IP Law Group
Challenge
in
Court
or
PTAB?
34
Factor
Court
PTAB
Decision
maker
Claim
interp./constr.
EvidenMary
burden
SupporMng
evid.
Discovery
ParMcipaMon
rights
No.
of
arguments
Claim
fluidity
Effect
of
equiMes
Cost
Timing
Standing
Anonymity

35. Renaissance IP Law Group
Thank
You!
35
Kevin B. Laurence
Patent Attorney
Direct: (703) 448-8787
kevin.laurence@renaissanceiplaw.com
1940 Duke St., Suite 200
Alexandria, VA 22314
Fax: (503) 517-9919