By: Rich Graham and Matt Johnson

On July 10, 2018, the PTAB announced the designation the following five decisions as informative:

Colas Sols. Inc. v. Blacklidge Emulsions, Inc., Case IPR2018-00242, Paper 9 (Feb. 27, 2018) – holding that 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1) bars institution of an inter partes review where a petitioner files a declaratory judgment action challenging the same patent before filing a petition.  The filing of a motion for joinder does not except a petition from the statutory bar of § 315(a)(1). The time bar of § 315(b) specifically states that it “shall not apply to a request for joinder under subsection (c),” whereas § 315(a)(1) does not include similar language.

Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd., Case IPR2012-00022, Paper 55 (Aug. 7, 2013) – applying 37 C.F.R. § 42.53, which governs the taking of testimony in trail proceedings, and setting forth 12 general guidelines for taking a deposition in a foreign language.

Argentum Pharm. LLC v. Alcon Research, Ltd., Case IPR2017-01053, Paper 27 (Jan. 19, 2018) – applying 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a), which states that “[t]he Board may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party . . . from disclosing confidential information” and setting forth guidance as to how a party can establish “good cause” to seal information. In particular, a movant to seal must demonstrate that: “(1) the information sought to be sealed is truly confidential, (2) a concrete harm would result upon public disclosure, (3) there exists a genuine need to rely in the trial on the specific information sought to be sealed, and (4) on balance, an interest in maintaining confidentiality outweighs the strong public interest in having an open record.

Ex parte Ditzik, 2018-000087 (Mar. 2, 2018) – holding that the Examiner’s invocation of issue preclusion was not in error based on Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s unpersuasive arguments included (A) the standards of proof differ between a district court and the PTO; (B) the new claims differ from the invalidated claims; (C) Appellant provides new evidence; (D) incorrect trial testimony led to the district court and Federal Circuit reaching the wrong result; (E) Appellant did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate; (F) the district court’s judgments are not final; (G) the PTO was not a party to the prior litigations; and (H) the Board should use its discretion to provide expert guidance.

Ex parte Jung, 2016-008290 (Mar. 22, 2017) – applying the Federal Circuit’s decision in SuperGuide Corp v. DirecTV Enters.,Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 885­–86 (Fed. Cir. 2004), which explains that there is a difference between a list separated by “and” and “or,” where the plain and ordinary meaning of “at least one of A and B” is the conjunctive phrase requiring the presence of both A and B. The Examiner can rebut the plain and ordinary meaning by providing the requisite supporting analysis that demonstrates that the claims, specification, or prosecution history necessitates a broader meaning.

The following two tabs change content below.
As an electrical engineer, Rich Graham uses his understanding of technology to provide clients with creative patent litigation and prosecution strategies.