In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed decisions in two inter-partes review (IPR) proceedings that patents owned by ICOS Corporation directed to tadalafil formulations (used in the erectile dysfunction drug, Cialis, and the pulmonary arterial hypertension drug, Adcirca) were invalid as obvious. (CAFC Decision Nos. 17-1071 and 1018,
A few months ago, the Irish drug company Allergan moved to shield its key patents on its dry-eye drug Restasis from challenge at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent Office by assigning these patents to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe in return for a commitment by the tribe, as new owner of the patents, to invoke “sovereign immunity” and request that the PTAB dismiss pending administrative challenges.
However, a recent decision in an unrelated case before the PTAB casts doubt on the viability of this strategy. In Ericsson v. Regents of the University of Minnesota, IPR2017-01186 (Paper 16 PTAB Dec. 19, 2017), an expanded panel of seven PTAB judges denied the University of Minnesota’s motion to dismiss an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding on the basis of sovereign immunity. According to the PTAB panel, by filing a patent infringement suit that asserted the challenged patent, the University had waived its immunity at least with respect to the defendants. One of defendants in that suit, Ericsson, Inc., had initiated the IPR proceeding.
The Ericsson decision involved the questionable practice of “panel-packing” by the PTAB’s chief judge, David Ruschke. In this instance, the Chief Judge added himself and three of his deputies to the original three judges assigned to the case for the purpose of deciding the University’s motion to dismiss, ostensibly to address the “exceptional nature of the issues presented.”
Two prior PTAB decisions by different panels of judges involving University-owned patents have upheld the sovereign immunity principle. In Covidien LP v. Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc., Case IPR2016-01274 (PTAB Jan. 25, 2017) and NeoChord, Inc. v. Univ. of Md., Balt., Case IPR2016-00208 (PTAB May 23, 2017), prior panels of PTAB judges faced with this issue had found that an IPR proceeding was an adjudicatory proceeding of a federal agency from which state entities are immune.
Judge Ruschke’s opinion on behalf of the enlarged panel confirmed that the sovereign immunity defense was generally available to state universities (and, by implication, other sovereigns like native American tribes) but the immunity was not absolute. By suing in federal court, Ruschke reasoned that University of Minnesota had waivered this immunity. He distinguished the prior PTAB panel decisions dismissing IPR petitions on sovereign immunity grounds because they did not involve “a State that filed an action in federal court alleging infringement of the same patent.” (The Covidien v. Florida case arose out of a licensing dispute in which the university had sued to enforce a patent license agreement and the disgruntled licensee then challenged the patent via an IPR petition. The Neochord v. Maryland case likewise involved a licensing dispute.)
Nonetheless, Judge Ruschke’s opinion has a logical weakness. The panel’s finding of a waiver appears to turn on the fact that an invalidity challenge to a patent in a federal infringement case is a compulsory counterclaim. Because the invalidity challenge must be brought or “be forever barred from doing so, it is not unreasonable to view the state as having consented to such counterclaims.” The opinion fails to explain why the counterclaim inherent in an infringement suit (i.e. a trial of the invalidity issue in the federal court) is not sufficient in and of itself or why the compulsory nature of the counterclaim should spawn a right to raise this issue in an alternative forum with significantly different (challenger-friendly) rules. …
Continue Reading Allergan’s Mohawk Gambit May Be Doomed – PTAB Rethinks the Scope of Sovereign Immunity
An en banc panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in the case of Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal recently held that in an inter-partes (IPR) proceeding, the burden of persuasion rests with the challenger to persuade the PATB that substitute claims proposed by a patent owner in a motion to…
On October 4, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, overruled an earlier panel decision and found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) had been impermissibly placing the burden of proving the patentability of amended claims on the Patent Owner, rather than the Petitioner. See, Aqua Products…
In an unusual move to combat the perceived bias in favor of patent challengers at the U.S. Patent Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the Irish drug company Allergan has decided to warehouse its key patents on the dry-eye drug Restasis with the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe in upstate New York. Allergan generates over…
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals again vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) panel decision for failing to properly evaluate “objective evidence of non-obviousness” and remanded the case for determinations consistent with its opinion. Specifically, the Fed. Cir. panel faulted the PTAB’s analysis Patent Owner’s objective evidence of unexpected results and further found…
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) recently construed the on-sale bar provision of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) in a way that will make it easier for petitioners to challenge third party patents. While in an inter-partes review proceeding, a petitioner can rely only on prior art patents and printed publications to challenge the validity of one or more claims of a third-party patent, in a post-grant review proceeding, a petitioner can raise any statutory ground of invalidity including the on-sale bar provision of 35 U.S.C. 102(a). This statutory provision, as modified by America Invents Act (AIA), bars patenting a claimed invention if the “claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions.”
Prior to the enactment of AIA, it was well established that the sale of a claimed invention more than one year from the effective filing date of a patent application, even if the sale did not involve disclosing the underlying invention, would bar patenting the invention. However, the change in the wording of this statutory provision introduced by AIA, and particularly, the use of the phrase “otherwise available to the public” immediately following “on sale” created ambiguity about whether a sale of a claimed invention without disclosing the underlying invention would trigger the on-sale bar provision.
Recently, in the case of Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the CAFC cleared up this ambiguity and held that the on-sale bar provision of 35 USC 102(a) applies to the sale of a claimed invention even if the sale did not involve disclosing the underlying invention. This decision can provide yet another tool for challenging patents in a post-grant proceeding. …
Continue Reading AIA On-Sale Bar Applies to Publicized Sales, Even When Knowledge of Sale Did Not Disclose the Underlying Invention
IPR petitioners wary of the statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) may have reason to be cautiously optimistic. Judge Sue Robinson of the Federal District Court of Delaware recently held that Toshiba is not estopped from presenting invalidity grounds at trial that it did not raise in an earlier IPR. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Toshiba Corp. No. 1:13-cv-00453, D.I. 559 & 574 (D. Del. December 19, 2016 & January 11, 2017).
35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) reads in relevant part:
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) . . . may not assert . . . in a civil action arising in whole or in part under section 1338 of title 28 . . . that the claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.
In her opinion, Judge Robison noted that the Federal Circuit has interpreted Section 315(e)(2) very literally. “[E]stoppel applies to grounds for invalidity upon which the Board instated review in the IPR proceeding, whether or not the Board addresses those grounds in its final decision (‘instituted grounds’). . . . [T]here likewise can be no dispute that estoppel does not apply to invalidity grounds that were raised by a petitioner in an IPR, but rejected by the Board as instituted grounds (i.e., ‘noninstituted grounds’).” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Toshiba Corp. No. 1:13-cv-00453, D.I. 574 (D. Del. January 11, 2017).
As background, Intellectual Ventures sued Toshiba for infringement of claims 17 and 19 of the ’819 Patent in Delaware in 2013. Toshiba petitioned for IPR of the ’819 Patent in 2014. Toshiba prevailed in the IPR, with the PTAB invalidating claims 17 and 19 in a final written decision. Toshiba Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, No. IPR2014-00418, Paper No. 28 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 2015).
Before the Delaware court, Intellectual Ventures moved for summary judgment that Toshiba is estopped from raising one of its invalidity grounds at trial because the ground was based on publicly available prior art that could have been raised in Toshiba’s IPR petition. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Toshiba Corp., No. 1:13-cv-00453, D.I. 559 at p.26 (D. Del. December 19, 2016). Judge Robinson disagreed, citing Shaw Indus. Group, Inc. v. Automated Creel Systems. Id. In Shaw, the Federal Circuit held that Section 315(e)(2) does not estop a ground rejected by the PTAB at the institution stage because, since “[t]he IPR does not begin until it is instituted,” the petitioner “could [not] have reasonably raised – the [rejected] ground during the IPR.” 817 F.3d 1293, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original). Extending the Shaw logic, Judge Robinson found that Toshiba is not estopped from raising its invalidity ground that was not raised at all in IPR. No. 1:13-cv-00453, D.I. 559 at 27 (D. Del. December 19, 2016). But Judge Robinson expressed misgivings at this result, noting that “[a]lthough extending the [Shaw] logic to prior art references that were never presented to the PTAB at all (despite their public nature) confounds the very purpose of this parallel administrative proceeding, the court cannot divine a reasoned way around the Federal Circuit’s interpretation in Shaw.” Id.…
Continue Reading IPR Estoppel Provisions May Not Be That Scary After All
In Covidien LP v. University of Florida Research Foundation Inc., the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) upheld a defense of sovereign immunity asserted by the University of Florida Research Foundation (the “Foundation”) and dismissed three Petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) filed by Covidien LP (“Covidien”) against a patent owned by the Foundation. (See IPR2016-01274, IPR2016-01275, IPR2016-01276) The Board relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Fed. Mar. Comm’n v. South Carolina State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743 (2002) (“FMC”) in its determination that the sovereign immunity defense applies to IPR proceedings, and it concluded that the Foundation was eligible to assert the defense as an “arm of the State” under Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304, *1309 (11th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
The Eleventh Amendment provides that the “judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects for any foreign State.” The Supreme Court has interpreted the Eleventh Amendment as a grant of immunity to the States against certain adjudicative proceedings brought against them by private parties. In FMC, the Supreme Court held that the sovereign immunity defense applied to administrative adjudications before the Federal Maritime Commission, grounding its determination in the similarities between the Commission’s proceedings and civil litigation. The Board relied on the Supreme Court’s analysis in FMC in determining whether the sovereign immunity defense could similarly be implicated in IPR proceedings.
Covidien filed IPRs against the Foundation as a counter-action to a breach of license suit brought by the Foundation against it. The Foundation argued that the IPRs should be dismissed, asserting that it was an arm of the State of Florida, and as such entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. The Board’s decision was limited to the Foundation’s sovereign immunity defense. This decision appears to be the first extension of the sovereign immunity defense to an IPR proceeding.
Covidien argued that under FMC the sovereign immunity defense should not apply to IPR proceedings, distinguishing IPRs from civil litigation. Most notably, Covidien argued that IPRs are adjudications directed against the validity of a patent itself, unlike civil litigation which resolves disputes between two parties. Thus, Covidien argued, the subject of the IPRs were the Foundation’s patents, not the Foundation itself, and therefore the IPRs were not proceedings brought against the State. Covidien also warned that implicating the sovereign immunity defense in IPR proceedings would effectively insulate invalid patents from scrutiny just because they were owned by a State, an outcome that would thwart the purpose of creating IPRs. In addition, Covidien noted that if the Foundation’s defense was upheld, a private party could never counter a State’s infringement action by petitioning for IPR proceedings, giving States a stronger position in district court actions.
Relying on FMC, the Board rejected Covidien’s distinctions between IPRs and civil litigation. The Board noted that IPRs are adversarial proceedings between two parties decided by an impartial adjudicator, the Board. The Board also likened the discovery rules and procedures of IPRs with those in civil litigation, and noted that final decisions by the Board created issue estoppel. Additionally, the Board noted that the Federal Circuit had previously held that interference proceedings can be characterized as a lawsuit when determining whether sovereign immunity can be applied in Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Curators of University of Missouri, 473 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Thus, the Board held that the similarities between civil litigation and IPR proceedings were sufficient to implicate the sovereign immunity defense in IPR actions under FMC.
In the case of Phygenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that the petitioner (Phygenix) that had unsuccessfully challenged certain claims of ImmunoGen’s U.S. Patent No. 8,337,856 (“the ‘856 patent”) in an inter partes review (IPR) lacked standing to appeal a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that affirmed the validity of the challenged claims because Phigenix had “not offered sufficient proof establishing that it has suffered an injury in fact…” Although the Federal Circuit has required appellants to demonstrate standing in other proceedings, the Phygenix case is the first time this doctrine has been applied to bar an appeal of a final written decision in an IPR proceeding.
ImmunoGen owns the ‘856 patent, which is directed to an antibody-maytansinoid conjugate that is purportedly useful in combating a variety of cancers. Genentech has a worldwide exclusive license to the ‘856 patent for producing the drug Kadcyla®. Phigenix in turn owns U.S. Patent No. 8,080,534 (“the ‘534 patent”). Phigenix alleged that the ‘534 patent covers Genentech’s activities relating to Kadcyla and hence the subject matter claimed in the ‘856 patent.
The America Invents Act (AIA) provides that “a person who is not the owner of a patent may file with the Office a petition to institute an inter partes review of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. 311(a). The AIA does not impose a standing requirement for a challenger to request the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) of a patent. However, the patent appellate court recently held that an IPR petitioner must have standing in order seek the appellate review of a PTAB’s final decision.
Phigenix sought inter partes review of the claims of the ‘856 patent based on an obviousness challenge. The PTAB initiated a trial but ultimately found the challenged claims to be nonobvious. Following the final written decision, Phigenix appealed the PTAB’s decision to the CAFC. In response, ImmunoGen filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Phigenix lacked standing to appeal the PTAB’s decision. A single judge of the CAFC denied ImmunoGen’s motion but requested that the parties file briefs addressing the standing issue.
Phigenix provided declarations in support of its standing to appeal the PTAB’s decision and argued that ImmunoGen’s ‘856 patent increases competition between itself and ImmunoGen and increased competition represents a cognizable injury. In particular, Phigenix argued that “[t]he existence of ImmunoGen’s ‘856 patent has … encumber[ed] Phigenix’s licensing efforts while ImmunoGen receives millions of dollars in licensing revenue.” Phigenix did not, however, contend that it faced the risk of infringing the ‘856 patent, or that it was an actual or prospective licensee of the ‘856 patent, or that it planned to take any action that would implicate the ‘856 patent.
The CAFC emphasized that a party’s standing to sue is a doctrine that is rooted in the case or controversy requirement of Article III of the U.S. constitution. In particular, in order to have standing, an appellant “must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the [appellee], (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Further, the CAFC stressed that although Article III standing is not necessarily a requirement to appear before an administrative agency, “an appellant must nonetheless supply the requisite proof of an injury in fact when it seeks review of an agency’s final action in a federal court.” …
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Requires Standing To Appeal An IPR Decision