• Home
  • About
    • Client Reviews
    • Patent Samples
    • Accolades
    • About Firm
    • Technologies
    • FAQs
  • Services
    • Patents
      • Patent Consultation
      • Patent Search Service
      • Patent Application Service
      • Patent Prosecution
      • Utility Patents
      • Design Patents
      • Patent Defense
      • Patent Enforcement
      • Working with In-House Attorneys
    • Trademarks
      • Trademark Search
      • Trademark Application Services
      • Trademark Prosecution
      • Trademark Enforcement
      • Trademark Defense
    • Licensing
    • Worldwide IP
    • Risk Management
    • Due Diligence
  • Industries
    • Browse Patent Samples
    • Automotive Patents
    • Construction Patents
    • Consumer Products Patents
    • Electronics Patents
    • Food, Beverage, & Other Culinary Patents
    • Manufacturing Patents
    • Medical Products & Devices Patents
    • Optics Patents
    • Software & App Patents
    • Tools & Equipment Patents
  • Learning Resources
    • First-Time Inventor?
    • Why Patent Your Invention in a Bad Economy?
    • Videos on Patents
    • Search 180+ Articles
      • Patent process
        • Overview of Patent Process
          • Patent process timeline and major milestones
          • Patent Process: Invention to Patent Granted (Simplified)
          • Patent process, overall steps and procedures
        • Overview of the examination process within the USPTO
          • Highs and lows of securing patent protection for your invention
          • What is the Patent Office procedure after filing a patent application?
        • Benefits of a Patent Search
          • What is a patent search and How to do it?
        • Patent attorneys, agents and the USPTO can help with the patent process
        • USPTO Website
      • Invention Agreements
        • What is an NDA and when to use them?
        • How to use a contract to protect your invention?
        • Working with others without losing your IP rights
        • Patent Assignments for Independent Contractors
        • Losing Invention Rights When Hiring or Collaborating with Others
        • Avoid Problems: Get an Invention Assignment Agreement
      • Protect Inventions
        • Misconceptions of Provisional Patent Applications
        • Do you need to get your patent attorney to sign an NDA?
        • Can a confidentiality agreement protect me like a patent application?
        • Four types of intellectual property to protect your idea and how to use them
          • Overview of Patents and Intellectual Property
          • Patent protection benefits and why every inventor should consider getting one
          • 8 tips to successfully protect your idea
          • Benefits of Patent Protection
          • Best uses for design patents
        • Reasons to only market your invention after securing patent pendency
          • Dangers of 1 yr grace period under first-inventor-to-file system
          • File a patent application before telling others about the invention
        • Risks and benefits of securing software patent protection
          • Strategy to overcome patentable subject matter rejection
        • Pros and cons of filing a continuation-in-part application
          • What is a continuation patent application?
      • How Patent Applications Work: the Basics
        • How to respond to an office action?
        • Request for non-publication of a patent application
        • Anatomy of a Patent Document
        • How to write a broad patent application?
        • Design patents: pros and cons
      • Patent costs
        • How much does it cost to get a utility patent?
        • Provisional Patent Application: Cheap Alternative?
        • Patent Cost Framework and cash flow
        • Provisional patent application: a cheap option?
        • Cheap provisional patent applications
      • Patent infringement
        • Basics of writing a patent claim for a patent application
        • Patent Marking: Everything you wanted to know
        • Avoiding Patent Infringement
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product?
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product? (Design Patent)
      • Worldwide patents
        • Pros and cons of securing worldwide patent protection and their steps
        • Foreign patent filing to secure protection in other countries
      • Responding to Office Actions
        • Overview of Office Actions
      • Trademarks
        • Trademark Registration: common law, state and federal
        • How to obtain a federal trademark registration?
        • How to select a trademark?
          • Protect your idea when pitching to an investor, potential licensee, or buyer
  • Schedule Consultation
  • Contact

Top-Rated Orange County Patent Lawyer | Helping Inventors in Orange County, Los Angeles County & Beyond | OC Patent Lawyer, Irvine CA

Orange County Patent Attorney

(949) 433-0900
You are here: Home / Patent Infringement / Post Grant Proceedings / PTAB must resolve all challenged patent claims in IPR

PTAB must resolve all challenged patent claims in IPR

May 4, 2018 by James Yang

all challenged patent claims iprBasic background of inter partes review

An IPR refers to an inter partes review.  The IPR is an administrative proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO in which a petitioner can request claims of a patent be invalidated to avoid patent infringement liability.  The petitioner is normally a business competitor to the patent owner wherein the patent owner has alleged patent infringement.  Under SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu (S. Ct. 2018), all challenged patent claims by petitioner must be included in the IPR if the single claim threshold is met.

Benefits of IPR

In a federal court where patent infringement is litigated, the alleged infringer would have to litigate multiple issues such as validity and noninfringement at the same time.  The IPR allows the alleged infringer to focus their resources on first attacking the validity of the challenged patent claims before having to spend the time and money on arguing noninfringement.

In my opinion, the IPR is a preferred venue to challenge the validity of the patent.  One reason is that the IPR allows the alleged infringer to argue for the “broad reasonable interpretation” of the terms of the patent claims.  With the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the claims are read broadly, and thus the prior art references are more likely to invalidate the patent claims based on a lack of novelty and obviousness.

If the challenged patent claims survive the IPR, then the alleged infringer can argue for the “ordinary meaning” of the challenged patent claims during litigation in federal court.  The ordinary meaning of a claim term is narrower than the broadest reasonable interpretation, and thus, the alleged infringer would be less likely to infringe the patent claims.  The alleged infringer can have claim construction beneficially construed in their favor in both stages of the litigation by taking advantage of the IPR.

All challenged patent claims must be instituted in IPR, no partial institution

In SAS, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether the PTAB could institute an IPR on some but not all of the claims identified in the petition for IPR by the petitioner.  Before SAS, PTAB would be able to pick and choose which claims would be considered in the IPR under the power of a USPTO regulation “partial institution.”  In SAS, the Supreme Court held that the PTAB did not have the power of “partial institution.”  The USPTO has already issued its Guidance on the impact of SAS on AIA trial proceedings.

Before SAS, the alleged infringer could only take advantage of the IPR proceeding for those patent claims that the Board instituted.   The petitioner would petition the Board to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of the patent by identifying the claims, providing grounds that the identified claims are not novel or obvious, and submitting the evidence supporting the challenge.  The patent owner would then argue why no IPR should be instituted.  If the petitioner was successful in convincing the Board that at least 1 claim (i.e., single claim threshold) would be invalidated, then the Board could pick and choose which claims of the patent should be a part of the IPR. “The Director did all this on the strength of a Patent Office regulation that purported to recognize a power of “partial institution.”

In SAS, the Director of the USPTO argued that the power of “partial institution” was found in the language of the statute.  In particular, the Director pointed to various sections of the IPR statute which gives the Director discretion and authority to institute the IPR.  The Director construed those sections to say that they allowed the Director to institute the IPR on a claim-by-claim basis and was not forced to institute the IPR as a group as chosen by the petitioner.  Also, the Director made policy arguments based on efficiency and stare decisis that the courts should give deference to agency regulations under Chevron. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

The majority opinion written by Justice Gorsuch disagreed.  In fact, the majority opinion stated that proper statutory construction begins with the language of the statute.  Based on the language of the IPR statute, the partial institution was not found anywhere.  As for the efficiency argument, the majority opinion indicated that the agencies should make regulations based on the statute as written and not based on policy.  Congress makes the laws based on policy and policy-making discretion is not within the purview of the agency.  Also, agency deference under Chevron is given only if the meaning of the statute cannot be discerned after employing traditional tools of statutory construction. As discussed in the opinion, the meaning of the statute was easily discerned.

Before SAS, the Board was allowed to resolve less than all challenged patent claims chosen by the petitioner under the USPTO’s regulation of “partial institution.” In SAS, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Board must resolve every challenged patent claim raised by the petitioner once the IPR is instituted by the Board.  They cannot pick and choose which patent claim to resolve.  Patentability on some of the challenged patent claims cannot be decided by the Board while the rest are litigated in federal courts.  The division is not for the Board to make.  The petitioner has the power to choose which claims should be included in the IPR, not the Board.

Ramifications of SAS opinion

The SAS opinion makes an IPR an even more attractive vehicle for challenging the validity of a patent.  Before SAS, the alleged infringer had to hope that the Board would institute the IPR for the claims (i.e., problematic claims) they thought they were most likely to infringe.  After SAS, the alleged infringer is given complete control over which claims are considered in the IPR so long as the single claim threshold is met.

This brings us to another benefit of an IPR to alleged infringers.  Before SAS, the alleged infringer had to spend the time and money to focus on all claims, especially the problematic claims to make sure that the problematic claims would be included in the IPR if the IPR was instituted.

Now, the burden on the alleged infringers appears to have been lowered.  In particular, the alleged infringer can focus on one or more claims that are likely to meet the single claim threshold, while spending less time and money on the other claims that they want to be included in the IPR because the PTAB must institute the IPR on all challenged patent claims as long as the single claim threshold is met.  Presumably, this should reduce the cost to alleged infringers for preparing a petition for an IPR.

I invite you to contact me with your patent questions at (949) 433-0900. Please feel free to forward this article to your friends. As an Orange County Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego, and surrounding cities.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Author

James Yang is a patent attorney. For more than 16 years, James Yang has been representing clients to secure patent protection for their inventions and register trademarks to protect their brands. If you need help, call him at (949) 433-0900. Read More…

Popular Posts

  • Patent process overview
  • Patent process explained
  • How much does a patent cost?
  • Why patent your invention in a bad economy?

Patent Book

Navigating the Patent System - new book by Orange County patent attorney, James Yang

Navigating the Patent System: Learn the patent process and strategies to protect your invention

Read for Free
Buy at Amazon

RECEIVE PATENT ARTICLES

Stay up to date on major changes and get tips on the patent process.

We respect your privacy.

Popular Posts

Patent process overview
Patent process explained
How much does a patent cost?
Trademark process and costs
Patent process and costs

 

Services

Patent Consultations
Patent Searches
Patent Applications
Utility Patents
Design Patents
Patent Prosecution Services
Patent Defense Services
Patent-Law Counsel for In-House Attorneys
Trademark Overview
Trademark Search Services
Trademark Application Services
Trademark Prosecution Services
Trademark Enforcement Services
Trademark Defense Services
See All Services

Industries

Automotive Patents
Consumer Products Patents
Culinary Patents
Manufacturing Patents
Medical Patents
Optics Patents
Software & App Patents
See All Industries

Contact

James Yang
OC Patent Lawyer
2372 Morse Ave., Suite #178
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (949) 433-0900

Connect

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Sitemaps

Sitemap: Pages | Sitemap: Posts

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

By accessing this blog, you agree that no attorney-client relationship is formed except by a subsequent written retainer agreement. Also, you agree to not send confidential information unless directed by me to do so. The information posted on this blog is legal information and not legal advice.
Complete Terms of Use
Complete Privacy Policy

ADA Compliance

OC Patent Lawyer aims to ensure that its services are accessible to people with disabilities.
Accessibility Statement

Service Area

From our office in Irvine, California, we serve clients from all areas within Orange County and Los Angeles County, California.

© 2023 · James Yang, Your Entrepreneur and Mid-Size Business Patent Attorney