May 14, 2021

Volume XI, Number 134

Advertisement

May 13, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 12, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 11, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

Patent Owner Tip #3 for Surviving An Instituted IPR: How Patent Owner Experts Go from Zero to Hero

Drafting the expert declaration is another critical task for Patent Owners during the inter partes review (“IPR”) discovery period. As noted in our previous post, IPR expert witnesses provide declarations as affirmative testimony in lieu of live testimony before the Board at the hearing. Because the expert witness will not be able to provide live testimony before the Board, expert declarations are the final evidence of the experts’ opinions, as there is no opportunity to correct misstatements or mistakes. Due to the procedural schedule of the IPR system, Patent Owners have the unique opportunity to file their expert declarations after deposing Petitioners’ experts, providing a significant strategic advantage.

As we have previously written, although Patent Owners may submit an expert declaration with the POPR to rebut testimony of the Petitioner’s expert, there are strategic reasons to avoid this, specifically that prior to institution, disputes of material fact “will be viewed in light most favorable to the petitioner.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). At the POR stage, Patent Owners can use the expert declaration to exploit factual disputes. In fact, given the unique IPR procedural schedule, Patent Owners are in the enviable position to submit their expert reports after deposing Petitioners’ expert witnesses. Because Patent Owners have the last evidentiary word, it is important to use this advantage to the fullest extent possible.

While it is often prudent to forego an expert declaration at the POPR stage, exploiting disputes of material fact can be effective at the POR stage. After institution, Petitioner bears of the burden of proof, and factual disputes are no longer resolved in its favor. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Because the Petitioner bears the burden of both persuasion and production, the Patent Owner can effectively use the expert declaration to highlight disputes of material fact to highlight the Petitioner’s failure to carry its burdens of proof. See In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Because Patent Owners have the advantage of submitting expert declarations after deposing Petitioners experts, they can analyze all of their arguments, noting the inconsistencies, misstatements or disputes of material fact, and identify the weaknesses in expert testimony.

One effective method of exploiting disputes of material fact is to identify misstatements or factual errors in Petitioner’s expert declaration and testimony and correct such misstatements and errors in the Patent Owner’s expert declaration. As noted above, submitting an expert declaration prior to institution can be risky, however, at the POR stage, expert testimony can be used to fill in the holes left by Petitioner’s expert. Many expert witnesses are very experienced witnesses and may decline to provide fulsome answers in expert depositions. This becomes an opportunity for Patent Owners’ expert to fill in those holes with testimony that supports Patent Owners’ positions. Where Petitioner’s expert stumbles, testifies to a lack of knowledge, or that they would need more information to answer a question during deposition, Patent Owner’s expert has to opportunity to fill in the gaps with the expert declaration. This in an amazing opportunity to not only advance Patent Owner’s position but to gain credibility with the Board.

Patent Owners can exploit this advantage and use their expert declarations to fill in the gaps left by Petitioner’s expert testimony. This not only allows the Patent Owner’s expert to have the last word, they can effectively direct the Board to the Petitioner’s failure to carry their burden of proof.

Advertisement
©1994-2021 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume XI, Number 112
Advertisement
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Michael C. Newman, Intellectual Property Attorney, Mintz Levin,Patent Litigation Federal Circuit Appeals International Trade Commission Federal District Court Strategic IP Monetization & Licensing
Member

Michael represents companies in complex intellectual property disputes, with a particular focus on Section 337 investigations before the US International Trade Commission (ITC). His experience spans from pre-litigation investigation and litigation, to appeals before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In addition, Michael has had extraordinary success representing patent owners in inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB).

Michael represents a broad range of clients in cases involving such diverse technologies as integrated...

617-348-1626
Courtney Herndon, intellectual property lawyer, Mintz Levin,Patent Litigation International Trade Commission Federal District Court Strategic IP Monetization & Licensing
Associate

Courtney is an Associate in the intellectual property section. Before joining Mintz Levin, Courtney clerked for Associate Justice Geraldine Hines of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and Associate Justice Vickie L. Henry of the Massachusetts Appeals Court. 

During law school, Courtney served as a judicial intern to Judge William G. Young of the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, and to Justice Hines (then an Associate Justice of the Massachusetts Appeals Court), conducting legal research, preparing bench memoranda,...

617-348-1871
Advertisement
Advertisement