THIRD PARTY PROCEEDINGS
Te PTAB will grant the petition and institute a PGR trial if the petition satisfies the threshold standard this it is “more likely than not” that one or more of the patent claims are not patentable. Like IPR, the third party has to identify all RPIs. However, unlike IPR, the request for cancellation of claims in a PGR can be based on any ground of unpatentability, except for non-compliance with the best mode requirement of 35 USC §112(b).
With PGR, both parties file responses, including affidavits and declarations in support of position, with
their alternating phases of limited
discovery. Te PTAB will issue its decision within one year of the institution date, and estoppel applies when the decision is issued.
PGR for CBM
A third party can request a PGR for CBM based on prior art. For first to invent patents, only a subset of prior art is available to support the petition. Also, only the RPI (ie, the third party requester) or privy that has been charged with infringement can file such a transitional proceeding.
Estoppel for this type of post-grant proceeding applies wherein the third requester cannot participate in any USPTO proceeding or file any court action against the patent which asserts that a claim in
the patent is invalid on any ground that the petitioner actually raised during the transitional proceeding.
Considerations for the third party When choosing IPR or PGR, consider that the third party will have to pay a large government (USPTO) fee for filing the IPR/PGR petition ($9,000 for IPR; $12,000 for PGR). Further, the third party will have to pay another institution fee if the PTAB grants the IPR/PGR trial ($14,000 for IPR; $18,000 for PGR; thus a total of $23,000 or $30,000). Tese government fees do not include any fees associated with hiring any declarant or affiant, or any attorney fees for preparing and participating in the IPR proceeding. It is worth noting that the costs of litigation can be significantly higher.
For an IPR, the request for cancellation of claims can only be based on prior art in the form of patents or printed publications. Only rejections for anticipation or obviousness (lack of inventive step) are proposed in the petition. Tis means that other forms of prior art (eg, a prior public sale) or non-prior art issues (eg, lack of written description) cannot be raised in the IPR, but could be raised in a PGR if the patent qualifies.
www.worldipreview.com World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2013 99
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196