1. How the Inter Partes Review (IPR) Works
  2. Inter Partes Review Appeals: What You Need to Know
  3. “Patent Litigation: Inter Partes Review” by Kevin O’Shea
  4. Inter Partes Reviews Are Changing the World of Patent Disputes
  5. Webinar | Midyear Review Developments of Interest in Inter Partes Review (IPR)
  6. Four Tips on Preparing Inter Partes Review Petitions
  7. Patent Trial & Appeal Board Roundtable | Shawn Ambwani, Inter Partes Review

How the Inter Partes Review (IPR) Works

Lets say someone owns a patent and they are threatening you or your customer – with it.,What are you going to do?,Well, you can sit back and wait until they sue you.,If that happens, youll have to defend against the lawsuit by arguing that you dont infringe,or that the patent is invalid.,Guess what?,That costs a lot of money…big dollars.,Thats the reason they call patent litigation the sport of kings.,Besides the expense, there are other obstacles.,Its hard to invalidate the patent in court.,Its hard to get a judge or jury to understand the technology and,it is hard dealing with the presumption of validity and clear and convincing evidence,standard in court.,And all of this takes a long time.,Its tough sledding, all around,Wondering if there is an alternative…a less costly way?,Do you dream of an alternative that also provides for the possibility to stay the patent litigation,while this process goes on?,Meet the Inter Partes Review or IPR.,This new procedure was developed by The U.S. Patent Office and it basically allows any,third party to challenge the validity of a patent in the Patent Office in front of a,panel of three judges.,What are the benefits of Inter Partes Review?,First of all, judges typically have technical backgrounds, which makes things easier.,Second and third, IPR is faster and cheaper than going to court.,IPR is like a mini trial that is completed in 12-18 months and costs less than a full,blown trial.,IPR can also be strategic – you can use it as a vise to squeeze the patent owner on how,he or she interprets the patent claims.,A patent owners IPR arguments on narrow claims can come back to haunt the owner in court,when trying to prove infringement.,That creates a nice space between a rock and a hard place to put your opponent.,But all upsides have their downsides and IPR does have a few.,In IPR, the patent owner gets to amend the claims of the patent to maybe cover your activity,better.,Also, you are prevented from re-using the prior art from the IPR in Court.,Thats the big picture view of Inter Partes Review.,There are a few finer points, a few nuts and bolts that you also need to know in order,to succeed.,One key part of the process is finding good prior art on the patent by searching for publications,that predate the patent.,Thats where it all starts.,Once youve done that, then you need to draft a petition for IPR.,That petition needs to lay out the case for why the patent is invalid.,How do you make the case?,You had better include claim charts and declarations from technical experts.,Once the petition is done, its off to the Patent Office to file it.,At this point, the patent owner has a chance to file a preliminary response.,In the response, the owner hopes to convince the patent office not to formally start the,IPR process.,How does the USPTO ultimately decide who wins?,It will look at the competing arguments and decide whether you have shown that there is,a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim of the patent.,If that happens, its game time….and the parties can then take discovery of the experts,and file more argumentative paperwork.,After all that is done, its trial time at the Patent Office.,Both sides can argue why the patent should be invalidated or sustained.,If you…or your opponent…dont like the Patent Offices decision, theres always the,option to appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.,This brief primer may trigger additional questions on whether Inter Partes Review might be right,for you.,The answer?,It all depends upon the specifics of your patent or issue.,To make an informed decision, contact qualified legal counsel to learn more.

Inter Partes Review Appeals: What You Need to Know

hi im david korn well a director with,intellectual property law firm stern,kessler goldstein and fox today Id like,to share a few thoughts with you on,inter-party to review and in particular,on the appeal process as most of you,know the inner parties review is a,patent office procedure in which a,member of the public can challenge the,validity of a patent there are three,issues that Id like to address today,the first is that a decision not to,institute an IPR is not appealable,petitioners are often dismayed to find,that although the petitioner lays out,multiple very good reasons for,invalidity the PTO exercises its,discretion and Institutes on IPR only,on a single ground the instituted ground,may or may not be the strongest ground,of invalidity therefore the petition,must go through trial on an issue that,is not the strongest issue although some,suggest that the patent trial and appeal,board does not have the power to,summarily dismiss appropriately raised,grounds of rejection this issues not yet,been resolved therefore it may be,important to use your 60 pages wisely by,limiting your argument to the single,best proposed rejection by doing so,youre at least going to be appealing,your best case if you lose at the board,the second issue that Id like to,address is that of standing in consumer,watchdog versus Wisconsin alumni,Research Foundation consumer watchdog,filed an inner partys re-examination,consumer watchdog had not been accused,of infringement but as a member of the,public had a right to try to invalidate,the patent that was owned by Wisconsin,alumni researcher foundation ultimately,consumer watchdog lost and elected to,appeal on June 4th 2014 the Federal,Circuit held that it did not have,jurisdiction over the appeal of the,inner parties re-exam decision even,though the statue provided the right to,appeal the Federal Circuit would not,take jurisdiction,over a case in which the parties seeking,court action had not suffered a concrete,personal harm there is no reason to,believe that the Federal Circuit will,also have jurisdiction over an IPR,appeal under certain under the same,circumstances therefore if you are,filing an inter parties review as a,member of the public but have not been,accused of infringement you may not be,able to appeal an adverse decision the,third issue that Id like to discuss,relates to general principles of an,appeal a party cannot appeal issues that,are not properly before the board for,the petitioner this sometimes means that,the requester needed to have raised the,issue in the original petition as a,simple example a petitioner might,challenge a patent as being anticipated,by the prior art if trial is initiated,on the issue of anticipation the board,will not determine issues such as,obvious no so an important lesson is to,make sure you have an issue to appeal,the board does not examine patents in,the same way as a patent examiner might,examine a patent it does not raise,rejections sua sponte during the course,of a trial the parties to an IPR cannot,shift gears in the middle of a trial,therefore it is critical that the,parties place into the record the issues,it will need to raise on appeal visi,these issues must be raised in a timely,manner lawyers can be frustrated by the,boards inflexibility regarding certain,issues for example the board will not,let a lawyer use demonstrative hes,that final argument unless the exact,demonstrative has been previously,introduced appealing such an flexibility,is fruitless because the Federal Circuit,affords substantial deference to the,boards interpretations of its own,regulations unless those interpretations,are plainly erroneous or inconsistent,with the regulation losing a winnable,case because youve failed to follow the,PTO rule will not give you a ground to,appeal the Federal Circuit reviews,issues of law de novo and issues of fact,first,stan shil evidence substantial evidence,is that which a reasonable mind might,accept as adequate to support a,conclusion and it is highly deferential,it is a highly deferential standard of,review the possibility of drawing two,inconsistent conclusions from the,evidence does not prevent an,administrative agencies finding from,being supported by substantial evidence,so heres the bottom line,an appeal to the Federal Circuit is not,going to be effective if you are not,able to appeal your best issues,therefore it is critically important to,understand the IPR process and to raise,issues at the appropriate time in the,appropriate way in the first instance,otherwise a party might be left with a,great speech and no audience thank you

More: 2022 volkswagen taos review

“Patent Litigation: Inter Partes Review” by Kevin O’Shea

hi my name is Kevin OShea Im a partner,at the intellectual property group of,ice Miller in Chicago may recall me from,other videos such as intellectual,property basics today were gonna be,talking about something much narrower,but something that has been in the press,a lot lately and specifically into,partys reviews of patents inter partes,reviews provides a faster forum for,patent litigation and therefore is often,considered what the sword in the shield,that is an it is an offensive and a,defensive weapon available to patent,owners in competitors so its jump in,what is an inter partes review an inter,partes review was essentially litigation,alight it is much more focused it is,faster and it is less expensive than,typical patent litigation which as we,all know can be very very both lengthy,and expensive an inter partes review or,an IPR as we refer to it is conducted,before the patent trial and appeal board,of the US Patent and Trademark Office,the patent trial and appeal board is,made up of administrative law judges,rather than US District Court judges,theres no jury instead theres a,hearing at the end so its much more,its much more focused proceeding than,in the u.s. district court proceeding an,IPR is focused only on specific,invalidity issues relating to patents so,no infringement issues are addressed and,no enforceability issues our Trust which,allows it to be as I said earlier more,focused and much quicker it is,litigation though and so for example,both parties are going to be involved,both parties have an opportunity to take,discovery much like in a district court,litigation however where a district,court litigation discovery can be broad,and all but a fishing expedition in an,IEP are the discovery is very very,limited and very focused only on the,issues at hand the,law judges do not let the parties very,or go fishing for anything beyond what,is really at hand so its a very focused,discovery period you can seek additional,discovery but if frankly very rarely,granted and even then its still going,to be very narrow and the administrative,law judges are going to reign in the,parties and keep and keep the IPR moving,forward again theres no jury trial,theres no jury this is an,administrative proceeding so at the end,of the IPR theres no jury trial but,instead of concludes with a hearing,before a panel of three administrative,law judges the the hearing less several,hours it is based upon pre-hearing,briefing rather than again in front of a,jury a particularly nice thing about an,IPR is that it must be completed within,one year after the patent trial and,appeal board Institutes the IPO so what,happens is it party asks the PTA B to,institute an IPR it explains in a very,lengthy submission exactly why the party,thinks that the patent at issue is,invalid the patent trial and appeal,board has three months to decide whether,to institute the IPR and if they do once,they Institute the IPR they have exactly,one year to issue a final decision so,everythings got to happen within that,one year again that makes it a much,faster resolution of a patent issue than,in district court which can range,anywhere from even at the very fastest,range from a year and a half to easily,three years or possibly even more once,the IPR is completed once the patent,trial and appeal board issues its final,ruling saying yes or no as to the,invalidity issue either party who isnt,happy with the ruling can appeal to the,US Court of Appeals for the Federal,Circuit,thats the appellate court in Washington,that oversees all patent Appeals in the,country so they are obviously,well-versed in what they do,interestingly unlike other proceedings,that go forward in the US Patent and,Trademark Office an IPR can be settled,so along the way,the parties can come to an agreement and,wrap it up and settle it,the PTA a B has to agree to end the and,the IP our but for the most part unless,youre really at the end of the IEP are,proceeding the PT B is going to let you,settle so as again unlike other,proceedings before the US Patent and,Trademark Office IPRs can be settled,which is a significant advantage of an,IPR now who can file an inter parties,review anyone anyone except the owner of,the patent so any third party any,citizen anyone a competitor for example,theres no need to show any dispute,between competitors so if you have a,competitor in there for example going to,launch a new product and you have a,patent that may in fact cover that new,product and therefore you would block,them from coming out with their new,product or conversely your coming out,with a new product and you have a,competitor whose patent may block your,new product you can consider filing an,IPR and invalidating that patent or the,competitor can consider filing the IPR,against your patent also in response to,a season sis letter,maybe you get a season sis letter from a,competitor or from a random patent owner,what has commonly been referred to as,patent trolls parties that just own,patents and assert them against,companies so you get a cease and desist,letter that says stop what youre doing,maybe something about your internet,website maybe its a product but stop,what youre doing youre infringing my,patent they respond a response you can,consider is to file an inter partes,review seeking to invalidate that patent,much quicker than going through district,court litigation much less expensive,than going through district court,litigation also this is an IPR is a good,way to clear the way for a new product,youre coming out with a new product you,want youre concerned about the patent,landscape maybe theres a patent out,there competitor owns or just some some,random patent owner you can file an IPR,against it seek to invalidate it again,you could settle that matter just but,because youve requested the inter,partes review and just because the PTB,has begun it,is ongoing doesnt mean youre locked in,you can settle it so its a,consideration in a situation like that,other another group that can file an IPR,and its anyone but strategically,another group that typically considers,filing an IPR are accused infringers and,litigation defendants so youve been sue,weve been sued for patent infringement,and youre considering your options,youre looking at potentially a very,long proceeding a very expensive,proceeding in a forum a district court,where youre where youre not home so it,could be far away because its going to,be expensive you can consider as the,accused infringer filing an inter,parties review the advantage is one,youre going to get the invalidity,question answered at the US Patent and,Trademark Office to the district court,may well postpone or stay the litigation,pending the outcome of the IPR because,the IPR happens quickly the Patent,Office moves faster in IPR it just,district judges oftentimes will stay the,litigation and wait to see what the PTO,does now your chances of staying,litigation are much higher the earlier,you file your IPR ask the district court,to stay the litigation if youre well,into it youre deep into your litigation,youre getting close to trial,very few judges will stay the case at,that point but if you have the very,early stages the complaints been filed,maybe youre we were just getting into,discovery you have a fairly good,likelihood of getting the court to stay,to litigation so then youre not moving,on two separate tracks the litigation,stays sort of on the shelf the inter,parties review goes forward you get the,validity decision determined and again,you can always settle it there is a,deadline if you are sued and a complaint,is served upon you you have one year to,file an inter partes review you cant,file it more than a year after the,complaint has been served thats in the,rules another group that has begun to,file into parties reviews are investors,who are believed to be short selling,stock this has become in 2015 its,significant,activity in the pharmaceutical industry,were activist investors are filing,enterprise revie

More: our flag means death review

Inter Partes Reviews Are Changing the World of Patent Disputes

inner party review or IPR has,fundamentally changed the way patent,disputes are handled in the United,States effective use of IPR by,defendants in certain circumstances has,effectively turned the tables on,plaintiffs and put the patent owner on,the defensive in the three years since I,PRS have become available the number of,filings has troubled in physical year,2013 there were 514 petitions filed last,year there were over 1700 petitions,filed the patent trial and appeal board,has instituted IPR proceedings for more,than seventy percent of petitions that,have been filed today now some of those,IPR proceedings result in settlement for,those that dont the vast majority of,claims that are challenging IPR,proceedings are either cancelled,unilaterally by the patent owner or held,to be unpatentable by the board in a,typical district court case it could be,many months two years before a district,court will rule that a patent claim is,invalid contrast that to P tab where,they will deliver a final written,decision in 12 months after institution,IPR is involve a more focused analysis,of the validity issue than district,court litigation each IPR is decided by,three administrative patent judges each,of these judges has a technical,background in science or engineering and,is an expert in patent law some of them,have even practiced patent litigation,and private practice before becoming an,administrative patent judge these,administrative patent judges decide one,issue and that is whether the challenge,claims are patentable in view of printed,prior art in district court on the other,hand those issues are decided by a jury,of lay people who are also deciding not,just validity but other issues such as,infringement,successful IPR can eliminate much of the,costs associated with litigation the,compressed timeframe for IPR proceedings,means lower costs in district court,litigation discovery is often a huge,burden and the procedures can account,for a large portion of attorneys costs,and fees there is some discovery in IPR,but its limited by statute and much,more limited in district court,litigation additional cost savings are,also available in an IPR due to the fact,that the final oral argument is normally,limited to a few hours as opposed to a,trial in litigation which could go on,for several weeks by seeking to stay,pending litigation IPR challenges have,the opportunity to quickly and,inexpensively resolve the dispute or the,board determines that the asserted,claims are unpatentable now one of the,key factors that court looks to in,granting a stay is the timeliness of the,motion so you want to get that petition,on file and the motion to stay on file,as quickly as possible before filing a,suit a patent owner must consider the,possibility of an IPR factors to,consider would include which parties to,sue in what order the type of parties,which patents to assert which claims of,those patents to assert now before,litigating a patent owner would be wise,to run a thorough prior art search and,determine the vulnerability of the,patent to IPR challenge and if there are,potential problems the patent owner,should consider putting their own patent,into re-examination or reissue to clear,up any potential problems as a defendant,you simply must consider an IPR when you,find yourself in a patent litigation the,IPR mechanism allows you to leverage,favorable settlements and your,likelihood of success of invalidating,claims is much higher than in district,court IPR is here to stay and has,revamped the landscape of patent,litigation there are many issues that,are unique to IPR that must be,considered and dealt with as a central,aspect of any patent enforcement or,defense strategy identifying and dealing,effectively with these issues is,critical to our client success,you

Webinar | Midyear Review Developments of Interest in Inter Partes Review (IPR)

good afternoon everyone and welcome to,our latest installment in our post grand,for practitioners series my name is,Dorothy Whelan Im the principal,efficient Richardson and the chair a,chair of our post grant practice Im,joined today by Tasha Francis Tasha is a,litigator in our biopharma space and,shes also with me here in Twin Cities I,were back here after after taking a,month off for the fourth of July holiday,and today were at our mid-year review,we are going to cover a number of,developments of interest in inter partes,review and so it just as a an overview,heres our agenda were first going to,give you our standard overview of the,webinar series particularly for those,who havent joined us before that will,be followed by a brief update on,statistics its a feature of all of our,webinars and then were going to,actually launch into our topics the,first topic is going to be hedge fund,practitioners and sanctions an important,topic in the butt in the biopharma space,most people have heard of Kyle Bass,where were going to talk to you about,the latest were also going to talk,about some interests some timing issues,that have emerged in real party in,interest again issues that practitioners,ought to be aware of and finally well,bring you up to speed on some,developments in amendment practice so,first of all an overview of the of the,webinar series who are we what are what,are these series will first of all we,you can see the invitation here on the,on the side of the slide where we do,them by by web we do them on the second,Wednesday of every month except for our,fourth of July break was our only break,to date what we try to do is cover,topics that are of particular interest,to practitioners this includes important,decisions coming from the P tab the,courts and particularly the Federal,Circuit and also legislative,developments were going to talk about,some of those today because there have,been many in the in this area also just,developments in the in the field that we,note,I mean we review on a daily basis,decisions coming out of the P tab and we,want to just give you our impressions,were also going to include practice,tips because most importantly we like,most of you are practitioners were not,academics we do a lot of work in this,field we see things of interest and we,assume that sort of interest to us we,want to pass that on on to you so first,some housekeeping matters CLE is,available if you have any issues,obtaining CLE please contact emma brown,at fish and shell take care of it for,you for those of you who are admitted in,New York later on in the presentation we,will announce the CLE code for New York,practitioners so stay tuned for that it,will be on the slides and Ill also,announced it we tend to leave questions,until the end just in the interest of,time what you can do is submit your,questions in written form and we will,make time to answer them at the end,certainly if we dont have time to,answer all questions wed be happy to,follow up with you after the webinar is,over to be finally materials for the,webinar this webinar including the,slides as well as slide presentations,and the oral of hearing from past,webinars you can find them online at our,fish post-grant website fish post-grant,calm so now that weve gotten the,preliminaries out of the way lets first,just talk briefly about some statistics,what what are we seeing here well the,number of IPRs filed were well over,3,000 through July thirty-first with 182,filed in June of 2015 alone I think this,is a testing to the continued popularity,of these proceedings CBM as you might,expect is its robust but but somewhat,lower again this reflects the fact that,CBM has more jurisdictional requirements,that then I pr1 actually that we dont,have in here but I think that people,should be aware of it you can find some,of these stats on the P tab website,itself is the growing number of,petitions were seeing I see our,petitions in the biopharma space of,pretty much group 1600 from a tech,center perspective its continuing to,grow were seeing it in small molecule,hatch-waxman context were also starting,to see more and more cases being filed,in the biosimilar space and well follow,these developments and will probably be,the topic of another webinar as we see,this is touch and I both practice in,this area it remains to be seen how i pr,will be used in the whole biosimilars,patent dance and and proceedings finally,final written decisions on the merits so,far were closing in probably on about,454 iprs and 54 for CVM this is through,the end of July you know these these,numbers are significant the P tab for,the most part is sticking to its one,year from the date of institution for,issuing a final written decision but,what these stats dont include and its,important to keep in mind is how many of,these cases are settled a number of them,are settled before institution or,immediately thereafter so post-grant has,actually become a pre powerful tool for,for settling disputes we also have not,included pgr petitions on here theyve,only been a handful to date and its,really not worth focusing on too much,now certainly as that develops will be,monitoring it and well circle back on,that so now I said now weve gotten,through the the stack part I wanted to,give you an update of which i think is,that going to be of interest to,practitioners the pita and AIP lar,during a series of road shows in three,locations on August twenty-fourth,theyll be in san jose august 26th in,dallas and in there will be in,Alexandria on August twenty-eighth these,are going to be full day of seminars the,first half of the day is developed and,you can go to the Ive given you a link,down here where you can actually obtain,more information and register the first,half of the day is going to be developed,devoted to a number of aia related,changes to patent prosecution practice,but in the afternoon and this is why i,want to make sure this audience is aware,of it theyre going to be a number of,panels with practitioners and p-type,judges to discuss developments in post,Graham practice Im going to be in san,jose and alexandria for for them and,then even more importantly each of these,proceedings is going to culminate in a,live oral hearing I mean these are not,mocks they are actual dispute the P tab,has secured the parties permission to,hold the hearing lied and this is,important for practitioners because it,gives you a chance to see what one of,these oral hearings entails how parties,present how the judges act what sort of,questioning they engage in not everyone,has a chance to go to DC and observe one,so this is a great opportunity if youre,certainly me or any one of these,locations I dirge you at least to attend,the afternoon session and with that,were going to turn to hedge fund,petitioners and sanctions Im going to,turn it over to Tasha because Tasha is,is has been tracking these Tasha also,writes a blog on the topic so Tasha take,it away great thanks Dorothy oh yeah as,already mentioned were going to talk,about I see our petitions filed by hedge,funds with a lot of focus on activity by,Kyle Bass and his related,entities including on some of his LLCs,which are the Coalition for affordable,drugs to date actually as of yesterday,they had filed a total of seventeen IPR,petitions but its my understanding that,he was busy this morning they actually,just filed another one against horizon,so that would bring our total to 18 IPR,petitions as Im aware of as a new and,central time for us it seems to be a,very but that could change by the end,yeah yeah theres been days where he,submitted several within the same day,but as far as I know what were up to,account of 18 so just a little,background of the target so far has been,a few different pharmaceutical companies,biotech for top looking at biogen,Celgene Posen Shire acorda NPS,pharmaceuticals and its minus shame,that horizon was the most recent target,here today said I feel and so my stats,are now out to date but the las

Four Tips on Preparing Inter Partes Review Petitions

hi im john wright director with the,intellectual property law firm of stern,kessler goldstein and fox,we just passed the one year anniversary,of the patent offices implementation of,interpartase review proceedings,based on our participation in over 40,proceedings our review of hundreds more,and recent feedback from the board weve,compiled,a series of tips for preparing ipr,petitions and patent owner preliminary,responses,today id like to offer four tips on,preparing a successful petition for,interpartase review,first stay focused,structure your challenge and make a,complete and compelling case around your,strongest prior art,the page limits simply do not allow for,a scatter shot approach,if you cant determine your strongest,argument the board will do it for you,weve seen case after case where the,board reduces the grounds for trial by,selecting what it perceives to be the,one or two most compelling grounds for,rejection,and labeling the rest is cumulative or,redundant,if you feel compelled to rely on more,than one or two primary references take,the time to candidly explain why,multiple references are necessary not,cumulative,second,be thorough,make it as easy as possible for the,board to verify and adopt your proposed,rejections,provide detailed citations to your,evidence,the board will typically not fill in,evidentiary gaps in your proposed,rejections,third,use declaratory evidence wisely,most petitions include declaratory,evidence the board finds this useful,where the technology is complex,and concise technical tutorials are,appreciated,declarance may also explain how one of,skill in the art would have understood,key claim terms,the following three things should be,avoided,conclusory statements,opining on patent law,and argument that is couched as,declaratory evidence,this third item could be perceived as,avoiding,petition page limits,finally,follow the rules,strictly follow all the formatting rules,and ensure that petitions have all of,the required sections,for example do not as a petitioner,attempt to provide your mandatory,notices,in a separate pleading they must be part,of the petition,claim charts are another item where the,board looks for abuse,single spacing is allowed but use a two,column format and do not include,argument or claim construction,early on the board was lenient,now theres sufficient guidance in,published decisions,so that little ambiguity remains on what,is acceptable,petition practice with respect to,formatting,ill end with one final observation,the boards rules explicitly state that,the rules will be construed to secure,the just speedy and inexpensive,resolution of every proceeding,thats rule 41.1 b,the only way the board can achieve this,mandate given the rapidly increasing,number of filed cases is to ensure,tightly focused proceedings,the boards first and best opportunity,toward achieving that goal is with its,trial decision on your petition,your best chance for success is to help,the board get there with a focused,tightly constructed,fully compliant petition,thank you,you

Patent Trial & Appeal Board Roundtable | Shawn Ambwani, Inter Partes Review

cool well um thanks everyone for,allowing me to present here today I,should mention that a lot of these,slides were cribbed from Brian loves,presentation that hes made we made a,paper jointly together but ill be going,over and so i just wanted to give him,credit and sorry you wasnt able to come,here he had a new child and so he went,on sabbatical and so thats why i have,the honor of presenting on this paper so,theres three parts to when im going to,be presenting first of all is the paper,that that we made together the second,part is a quick update so we updated,some of the statistics from that paper,because its getting a little stale and,then the third part is some general,observations about and Suzanne Michelle,mentioned some of that about how patents,are being used in IPRs are being used,overall in litigation strategy um okay,so so this is a paper and so we can talk,about this briefly but we stopped the,paper actually October first 2014 which,is a while ago now obviously and we,actually only studied the IP ours up to,april first 2014 and the reason why we,did that was because we wanted to make,sure that the IPRs had matured to the,point where there was an institution,decision or not to be able to get,accurate statistics on some of the kind,of what was the success rate or not,success rate some of the unique aspects,of what we did was we looked at the MPE,status so non-practicing entity status,of the players involved and we looked at,the tech classes and we kind of define,the tech classes between different areas,whether they be medical so we call them,sectors so not based necessarily on tech,sectors as theyre traditionally defined,but who the companies are there getting,asserted against primarily technology,like high-tech and then other like,mechanical type things and then we also,looked at parallel litigation for all,the instituted IPRs and so that was,important because we wanted to see how,this relates to existing,yours see so some of the interesting,statistics that came out of that I mean,Im not going to go very deeply into,this part because you guys can look,these up anyways you know obviously the,pending was very high because there was,a huge bubble of IPRs coming into the,system that we just didnt evaluate,essentially there was you know twenty,percent were not instituted and we,looked at on the merits or if it was,untimely or duplicative and what,percentage settled and we also looked at,before institution and after institution,when the settlements were and one,important thing I think theres a couple,important things to look at in these,statistics for later is on the merits,was only about twice as much as Im,finally or duplicative and then on the,after IPRs are instituted the settlement,rate was you know a little more than,before institution but not much that,much higher and then final decision was,sixteen percent we also looked at the,duration on how long it took to,terminate so all terminated were nine,months not instituted six months,obviously because thats when the,institution decision was made and,settlement was on average a little over,the institution decision and I think you,know and this is not something that I,know for sure Im just you know making,my own kind of theory about it is that,you know companies back then didnt know,and this is basically in 2014 they,didnt know how I prs were going to,come out at that point so a lot of them,were waiting to seeing what was,happening with the chances of,institution and at that point they,decided whether its settle or not now I,think some of this has changed now and,frankly we are going through the process,of updating the study right now and my,expectation is to see the settlement,rate come in around five months now as,opposed to seven months simply because,people are attending to settle,beforehand rather than later now but I,dont have those statistics yet and then,you know if you had to go to final,decision the average time frame,that is 15 months and you know another,interesting thing and I should mention,this is that we did do comparison and,its in the study and the paper that you,can look up and in the study talked,about the difference between iprs,reexaminations and reviews for example,and so it was 36 months for,re-examination compared to review and we,also looked at you know the amendments,that question came up amendments were a,huge difference and we can go into that,also so this is um what we calculated,the institution rates to be so the,original institution rate was around,seventy eight percent but what we did is,then we said well lets get rid of a,couple different things um you know,decisions not to just Institute for,other various reasons like Duke,duplication or a joinder issues so we,got rid of that and then also you know,where theres a unique patent or there,was another IPR that was involved that,was involving the same patent we got rid,of that too and in the process we saw,the institution rape if you got rid of,all of those the institution rate goes,up to eighty seven percent the,institution rate for reexamination was,ninety-three percent so it was pretty,high originally but again there was a,huge difference than on the amendment,side and so that we thought that was in,Institute interesting and then we looked,at the claims what percentage of the,claims were instituted so for the,average IPR out of 16 claims challenged,11 claims were invalidated or disclaimed,that was just on a claim level basis,what we were looking at you know versus,61 percent of inner parte reexamination,patents surviving with amended claims,back then there had been only one,successful amendment and thats where,both parties agreed to it at that point,in time and it was the US government I,think on both sides if I remember,correctly but since then theres been,additional successful amendments,as I understand but thats back then and,so I just have to you know remind,everyone this is like a study that ended,in October of last year and really,talked about you know filings up to,april of last year so you know among,iprs with final written decisions or,requests for adverse judgments 77.5,percent all instituted claims were,invalidated or disclaimed and sixty-five,percent of all challenged clams were,invalidated or disclaimed so its a,pretty good number and we compared it to,reexamination again which you know,obviously is a timely question and there,are thirty-one percent of the,reexaminations ended with all claims,invalidated or disclaims and the rest of,them essentially got amended so theres,a huge number of amendments that happen,in reexamination in the past that just,was not happening right now and you know,people argue either way on this I think,one argument on you know one side is to,say well you know why should it be,amended if its in IPR you cant amend,in district court why should you be able,to amend here another argument is that,you know people should have the chance,to change it I think a counter to that,is if its in litigation you know one of,the policy issues that is if someone is,putting their patent into litigation,knowingly if were talking about patent,quality and improving patent quality,they have I think some of the duty to,actually look at the prior art before,they start filing these patents in,litigation ensuing people with them to,ensure that it is good quality and they,have amended it correctly or taking care,of looking the claims in a way that make,sure that theyre able to cover,themselves because they are willing to,put their patents out there then to play,and if you play you can get hurt so we,looked also a comparing MPs to what we,call operating companies so we compare,the difference in you know what,percentage,of IPRs were against MPs and against,operating companies it was about half,and half we looked at the institution,rate so the key difference here is the,institution rate and got five minutes so,Ill be quick the institution rate was,about nine percent higher and this is in,2014 compared to

Categorized in:

Tagged in:

, ,