December 4, 2020

Volume X, Number 339

Advertisement

December 03, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

December 02, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

December 01, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Tip #1 for Avoiding IPR Institution: Litigation Venue Selection

Venue selection is a critical component to any patent enforcement strategy, even before the inception of the PTAB as we know it today.  Venue now has even greater importance, as the speed of your patent case (i.e. time to trial) and stay statistics will have a direct impact on whether IPRs against your patents will institute in light of the Fintiv factors.  Because venue selection is largely within the patent owner’s control, a successful enforcement strategy should factor the likelihood that the chosen venue may assist in avoiding IPR institution, in addition to other factors.  Using this built-in advantage may be critical to your case proceeding in district court, rather than being diverted to (and potentially dying in) the PTAB.

Earlier this year, the PTAB designated as precedential Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020), which lays out factors a panel must consider when deciding whether to exercise discretion to deny institution.  Two of the factors are directly related to the venue the case will proceed in: (1) whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; (2) proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision.  The PTAB has a directive to conserve resources and not conduct redundant and duplicative proceedings.  This means that if your case is likely to proceed in district court regardless of IPR institution, or the trial will resolve issues earlier than the PTAB will, a discretionary denial of institution may be appropriate.  Though the Fintiv factors have only been around a short time, panels have already denied institution after applying the Fintiv factors numerous times—in many instances the decision turned on whether the district court handling the case either has a fast time to trial, does not stay cases due to post-grant proceedings as a general rule, or both.

All litigants should be checking time to trial and stay statistics when selecting a venue, and also should check the model scheduling orders that are issued after the case management conference.  As petitioners factor Fintiv jurisprudence into their post-grant strategies, we may see earlier and earlier petition filings.  Thus, having an existing schedule with an aggressive trial date will likely be helpful to patent owners briefing the Fintiv factors before the PTAB.  Indeed, demonstrating the effect the Fintiv factors may have on PTAB practice, a group of implementers, including Apple and Google, recently sued the USPTO to enjoin the use and application of the Fintiv factors for discretionary denials.

Selecting a venue that gets to trial quickly, or appears to get to trial quickly, has always been important, but now those metrics may further outweigh other potential benefits of a particular venue—the time to trial metric now may be the difference between avoiding institution at PTAB, and thus getting to trial at all.  Avoiding institution of IPRs is the single most helpful action to ensure your enforcement action sees a trial, and ensuring you select a venue that maximizes the probability that institution will be denied is critical. 

Read Avoiding IPR Institution: Your Best Defense to an IPR Challenge

©1994-2020 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume X, Number 303
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Daniel B. Weinger Patent Litigation Attorney Mintz Law Firm
Member

Daniel's practice in intellectual property focuses on patent litigation, both at the International Trade Commission and the Federal District Courts. Daniel has participated in all phases of patent litigation, including active engagement in multiple evidentiary hearings at the International Trade Commission. He has done work in a variety of technology areas, including computer software, software architecture, GPS, network devices, semiconductors, converged devices, and LED lighting.

Prior to joining Mintz Levin, Daniel worked as a database...

617-348-1629
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
Peter J. Cuomo, Mintz Levin, Patent Litigation Lawyer, Expert Discovery Attorney,Patent Litigation IPRs & Other Post-Grant Proceedings Federal Circuit Appeals Hatch-Waxman ,ANDA Litigation Federal District Court
Of Counsel

Peter’s practice involves intellectual property enforcement and defense, and client counseling on issues related to IP rights. Peter's primary focus is in patent litigation where he has experience in every phase from pre-suit investigations through appeal, including, initial evaluation and case initiation, fact and expert discovery, pre-and post-trial motion practice, and trials and appeals. In addition to suits centered on the assertion and defense of infringement claims, Peter has experience with the successful resolution of multiple inventorship disputes and related misappropriation...

617-348-1854
Advertisement
Advertisement