the impact of iprs on parallel litigation before the ... · the impact of iprs on parallel...

The Impact of IPRs on Parallel Litigation Before the District Courts and ITC

Presented by: Andrew Sommer

April 30, 2015

Today’s eLunch Presenter

Andrew R. Sommer Litigation

Washington, D.C.

[email protected]

5-Minute Primer on Inter Partes Review

What is an IPR?

• One of four types of trial proceedings created by the America Invents Act of 2011 (“AIA”); first available on September 16, 2012

• Evidentiary proceedings adjudicated primarily on the written record

• Proceedings replace inter partes reexamination

• Proceedings require written and oral advocacy skills as well as technical and litigation skills

• Many procedural pitfalls

4

What is an IPR?

5

Google Inc. v. Jongerius Panoramic Techs, LLC IPR2013-00191, Paper 50

(PTAB Feb. 13, 2014)

Types of Validity Challenges in IPR

6

35 U.S.C. § 311(b) – Scope. A petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.

§ 102 § 103 OR

AND

patents printed pubs

OR

anticipation obviousness

IPR Timeline

7

Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,757

(Aug. 14, 2012).

Key Document: Institution Decision

8

Key Document: Institution Decision

9

Key Document: Final Written Decision

10

Estoppel After IPR

11

See 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2).

Who?

• Petitioner; or • real party in interest; or • privy of the petitioner

What?

• “may not asset either in a civil action arising in whole or in part under section 1338 of title 28 or in a proceeding before the International Trade Commission under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 that the claim is invalid . . . .”

Scope?

• on any ground raised; or • on any ground that reasonably could have been raised during the inter partes

review

When? • After final written decision

Many IPR Filings

12

17

79 94

137

204

260

190

350

459 458

415

8 7 2 19 20

47 43 55

32 44 43

Q3 2012 Q4 2012 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2013 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015

PTAB Trial Filings by Quarter IPR Petitions Filed CBM Petitions Filed

PTAB Claim Constructions and District Court Proceedings

14

“some deference”

ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-1112-JRG, 2015 WL 1289321, at *5-6 (E.D.

Tex. Mar. 20, 2015).

15

PTAB Constructions Getting “Some Deference”

ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-1112-JRG, 2015 WL 1289321, at *4-6, 10

(E.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2015).

16

PTAB Construction Supports Indefiniteness

Grobler v. Apple Inc., Case No. 12-cv-1534-JST, 2014 WL 1867043, at *8

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2014).

17

But Not Always Getting Deference . . . .

Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Autozone, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-888-WCB

(E.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2015) (Bryson, C.J. sitting by designtion)

18

PTAB Decisions: Intrinsic Evidence?

Fairfield Indus., Inc. v. Wireless Seismic, Inc., Civ. A. No. 4:14-CV-2972, 2015 WL 1034275, *5

(S.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2015)

19

PTAB Decisions: Intrinsic Evidence?

DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. Co., Ltd. Civ. A. No. 2:14-cv-199-RSP, 2015 WL 1737732

(E.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2015)

20

Patent Owner’s Silence Not Admission

Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Autozone, Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-888-WCB

(E.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2015) (Bryson, C.J. sitting by designtion)

PTAB Decisions and Substantive Motions

IPR Denial Leads to SJ of No Invalidity

22

The Procter & Gamble Corp. v. Team Techs., Inc. Case No. 1:12-cv-552 (S.D. Ohio) Jul. 20, 2012

Complaint

Jul. 12-15, 2013 IPR Petitions

Jan. 9, 2014 Institution Decisions

* PTAB denied institution on many challenged claims

Jul. 3, 2014 SJ of No Invalidity

IPR Denial Leads to SJ of No Invalidity

23

The Procter & Gamble Corp. v. Team Techs., Inc. Case No. 1:12-cv-552, Dkt. 130, slip op. at 21-24

(S.D. Ohio Jul. 3, 2014)

Adverse Judgment in IPR Against Patent Owner Leads to District Court Estoppel?

24

“A party may request adverse judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding. Actions construed to be a request for adverse judgment include: . . . (2) Cancellation or disclaimer of a claim such that a party has no remaining claim in the trial.”

37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2).

“A patent applicant or owner is precluded from taking action inconsistent with the adverse judgment . . . .”

37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3).


25

Choon’s Design, LLC v. Zenacon, LLC Case No. 2:13-cv-13568, 2015 WL 539441

(E.D. Mich. Feb. 9, 2015) Aug. 19, 2013

Complaint

Dec. 13, 2014

IPR Petition (by third party)

May 20, 2014 Institution Decision

Feb. 9, 2015 Dismissal Denied

Jul. 3, 2014

4th Am. Compl.

Jul. 7, 2014 PTAB Adverse Judgment


26


(E.D. Mich. Feb. 9, 2015)


27


(E.D. Mich. Feb. 9, 2015)

Institution of IPR = “Objectively Reasonable” Invalidity Defense?

28

No IPR instituted unless “the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail” on at least one claim.

35 U.S.C. § 314(a)

The objective recklessness determination “entails an objective assessment of potential defenses . . . [and] can be expected in almost every case to entail questions of validity . . . .”

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., 682 F.3d 1003,

1006 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

Does an instituted IPR provide sufficient evidence for summary judgment of no willful infringement since it is decided under the “reasonable liklihood” of prevailing standard?

Institution of IPR ≠ “Objectively Reasonable” Invalidity Defense

29

Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Communications, Inc., 45 F. Supp. 3d 881, 920-23

(W.D. Wisc. 2014).


30


(W.D. Wisc. 2014).


31


(W.D. Wisc. 2014).

Admissibility of PTAB Decisions at Trial

Use for Rebutting Willfulness?

34

Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Communications, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-346-bbc, 2014 WL 5023098

(W.D. Wisc. Oct. 8, 2014).

Use to Rebut Indirect Infringement?

35

Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Zynga, Inc. Case No. 2:12-cv-68-JRG, 2013 WL 10253110

(E.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2013).

Use to Rebut Presumption of Validity?

36 36


(W.D. Wisc. Oct. 1, 2014).

Use to Rebut Presumption of Validity?

37 37


(W.D. Wisc. Oct. 8, 2014).

Can Patent Owner Use a Denial of Trial?

38

Universal Elecs., Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc., Case No. SACV 12-00329 AG

(C.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2014).

IPRs and Litigation Before the ITC

Impact of IPRs in the ITC: Stats

• Complaints Filed Between September 16, 2012 and December 31, 2014: • Number of Complaints: 84

• Number of Patent Assertions: 283 patents

• Number of IPRs filed: 73

• Average time between filing of complaint and filing of IPR: 6.7 months

• Median time between filing of complaint and filing of IPR: 5 months

• Minimum time between filing of IPR and complaint: -2.0 months

• Maximum time between filing of IPR and complaint: 23 months

40

IPRs and High-Low Settlements in the ITC

41

In the Matter of Certain Omega-3 Extracts from Marine or Aquatic Biomass and Products Containing the Same,

337-TA-877 (ITC May 13, 2014).

File Early File Late • If filed early enough, could

have a final PTAB decision before exclusion order issues

• May obtain usable admissions

• Institution decision may be useful at the hearing if favorable

• Opportunity for creative resolutions

• Lower risk of denial of institution impacting ID

• Increased settlement leverage if petitioner receives favorable ID

• After favorable ID for petitioner, will have adequate time to complete IPR pending commission review and appeal

• All cards on the table as to key prior art

42

IPR Timing Strategies in the ITC

43

IPR Timing Strategies in the ITC File IPR Early

Pros: 1. If filed early enough, could have a

final PTAB decision before exclusion order issues

2. Usable admissions 3. Institution decision may be useful

at the hearing if favorable 4. Opportunity for creative

resolutions

Cons: 1. Highly unlikely to have a final

decision before ID 2. Institution decision may harm

invalidity defenses 3. Gives Patent Owner additional

leverage if institution denied

File IPR Late Pros: 1. Lower risk of denial of institution

impacting ID 2. Increased settlement leverage if

petitioner receives favorable ID 3. May have adequate time to

complete IPR pending review and appeal if ID is favorable

4. All cards on the table as to key prior art

Cons: 1. Unlikely to be relevant to ID 2. May not be in the record at all 3. No impact if an adverse ID but

extra cost

Estoppel Effects and District Court Litigation

45

35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1): Estoppel

“The petitioner in an inter partes review of a claim in a patent under this chapter that results in a final written decision under section 318 (a), or the real party in interest or privy of the petitioner, may not request or maintain a proceeding before the Office with respect to that claim on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.”

35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2)

Cases of Note On Estoppel Issues

46

• Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics, Case No. 3:12-cv-1500 (D. Oregon) • IPR challenged claims 1-15 and 20-33

• PTAB instituted trial of claims 1-9, 11, 28, and 29 (43% of challenged claims)

• Final Written Decision issued on February 19, 2014, finding claims 5, 8, and 9 invalid (25% of instituted claims)

• In parallel litigation, patent owner dropped claims except for 1, 24, 26, 27, and 28

• Validity not sent to the jury

• Judgment of $36.4M returned for patent owner

• Nat’l Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Omron Oilfield & Marine, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-773-SS, Dkt. 62 (Dec. 2, 2013) • Defendant filed petition for IPR

• PTAB denied petition as to all claims

• Court held that “the statutory doctrine of estoppel DOES NOT APPLY to this case” and noted that the “panel did not think much of the contentions that prior art invalidated the patent by finding that the petitioner . . . ‘has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing’ in any of its contentions.”

Cases of Note On Estoppel Issues

47

• ROY-G-BIV Corp. v. ABB, Ltd., 6:11-cv-00622-0624-LED • IPRs instituted covering all claims • All claims found patentable in final written decision • Day final written decision issued, patent owner filed letter brief

requesting summary judgment as to all invalidity defenses, and a finding of privity for all defendants

• Motion allowed, remained pending at time of settlement

ROY-G-BIV v. ABB, Ltd. - Estoppel

48

ROY-G-BIV v. ABB, Ltd. - Estoppel

49

IPRs and Procedural Issues in the District Courts

Notifying Court of IPR Proceeding

51

Virginia Innovation Sciences v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 983 F. Supp. 2d 713, 760

(E.D. Va. 2014).

Protective Orders: Prosecution Bars

• Prosecution Bar in N.D. Cal. Model Protective Order Applies to PTAB Trial Proceedings, Even for Expired Patents • Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 5:12-cv-3970-

RMW-PSG, 2014 WL 116366 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2014)

52


• Litigation counsel permitted to participate in IPR, but not claim amendments • Paice, LLC v. Hyundai Motors Co., WDQ-12-0499, 2014 WL 4955384 (D.

Md. Sept. 29, 2014)

• Endo Pharms., Inc. v. Actavis Inc., No. 12 Civ. 8985 (TPG), 2014 WL 3950900 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2014)

• LifeScan Scotland, Ltd. v. Shasta Techs., LLC, Case No. 11-cv-4494 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2013)

• EPL Holdings, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. C-12-4306 JST (JSC), 2013 WL 2181584 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2013)

• Prolitec Inc. v. Scentair Techs., 945 F. Supp. 2d 1007 (E.D. Wis. May 17, 2013).

53


• Litigation counsel permitted to participate in IPR without restriction: • PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Times Fiber Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 5:13-

cv-460 (GLS/DEP), 2014 WL 859111 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2014).

• Cases prohibiting counsel having access to source code from participating in IPR: • Versata Software Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc., Case No. 12-931-SLR,

2014 WL 1117804 (D. Del. Mar. 12, 2014)

• Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-96 (GMS), 2014 WL 4370320 (D. Del. Aug. 27, 2014).

54

Protective Order Violations

• Disclosure of confidential information received under district court protective order during conference call with PTAB results in monetary sanctions: • Lunareye, Inc. v. Gordon Howard Associates, Inc., Civ. Action No. 9-13-cv-

91 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2013). • “The law regarding the interplay between proceedings before the PTAB and district

courts is not yet developed. Counsel should therefore have taken care to avail themselves of procedures to avoid inadvertent disclosure of protected confidential information such as a motion to seal under 37 C.F.R. § 42.14 or a request that the protective order be modified.”

• The Court then held that a monetary sanction of $2,500 was appropriate because it “is the least onerous sanction that is sufficient to remind counsel of this duty, deter future violations in this suit, and serve as an adequate general deterrent for similar conduct.”

55

Third Party Discovery

• Discovery into real-party-in interest or privity through third-party subpoena denied: • Personal Audio LLC v. Togi Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-80025

RS(NC), 2014 WL 1318921 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2014) – subpoena seeking information about EFF and its relationship with defendants denied because whether EFF will be estopped is irrelevant because it is premature.

• Callwave Communications, LLC v. Wavemarket, Inc., No. C 14-80112 JSW(LB), 2015 WL 831539 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2015) – subpoena seeking information related to privity between petitioner and defendants in litigation denied.

56

IPR Strategies for Parallel Litigtion

58

Strategy Considerations for Parallel Proceedings

• Best practices for “reasonable” prior art search

Prior Art

• Ensure “best” patents / printed publications are presented in the first petition

Selection of Grounds

• Understand risk; either (1) “all-in” approach; or (2) understand and develop defenses that cannot be presented in IPR

Availability of Other Defenses

What’s Next?

Thank You.

Andrew R. Sommer Litigation

Washington, D.C.

[email protected]

the impact of iprs on parallel litigation before the ... · the impact of iprs on parallel...

Documents