`
`Howreliable are trial dates relied on by the PTABin the
`Fintiv analysis?
`
`By Andrew T. Dufresne, Nathan K. Kelley & Lori Gordon on October 29, 2021
`
`In recent years, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has frequently declined to institute IPRs
`for procedural reasonsunrelatedto a petition’s substantive strength. In particular, the Board
`has increasingly denied petitions in view of related, parallellitigation that it perceives as so
`far advancedthatit would be mostefficient to deny institution and leave patentability issues
`
`
`(PTAB Mar. 20, 2020)(Precedential). Key among the factors guiding those Fintiv denials is
`whether and to what extent the other proceeding’strial date is scheduled to precede the
`Board’s deadline for issuing a final written decision, i.e., Fintiv factor two. /d. at 9.
`
`But how reliable are thosetrial dates?
`
`The Board “generally take[s] trial courts’ trial schedules at face value absent some strong
`
`
`
`data sets that suggested suchtrial dates often change and therefore present an unreliable
`basis for denying institution. We took a more comprehensivelookat this question by
`identifying all discretionary denials that were based onparallellitigation and issued between
`May and October 2020. That six-month period opened the same monththat Fintiv was
`designated precedential and ended approximately one year ago, allowing us to evaluate
`whatactually happened over the intervening year when an IPR otherwise would have taken
`place and reacheda final written decision within the 12-month timeframe required by statute.
`
`APPLE
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1024 - PAGE 0001
`EXHIBIT 1024 - PAGE 0001
`
`
`
`The Board was almost always wrong when predicting trial dates in
`parallel litigation
`
`Our results confirm the prior criticism. Out of 55 discretionary denials, only seven citedatrial
`date that proved accurate.[1] Notably, in four of those, the cited date was correct because
`trial had already occurred whenthe Board deniedinstitution. Apple Inc. v. Unwired Planet
`Int'l Ltd., IPR2020-00642, Paper 15 (PTAB Sept. 9, 2020); Apple Inc. v. Optis Wireless Tech.,
`LLC, IPR2020-00466, Paper 13 (PTAB Sept. 15, 2020); Apple Inc. v. Optis Cellular Tech.,
`LLC, IPR2020-00465, Paper 13 (PTAB Sept. 17, 2020); Amazon.com, Inc. v. Vocalife LLC,
`IPR2020-00864, Paper 22 (PTAB Oct. 28, 2020). When evaluating future trial dates, the
`Board was wrong 94% ofthe time (48/51).
`
`PTAB Accuracy Predicting Future
`Trial Dates
`
`
`
`«Correct ®|ncorrect
`
`The discrepancies were often substantial. Out of the 51 cases where the Board relied on a
`predicted future trial date, only three occurred on time. For the others, one was delayed by
`less than one month, five were delayed by 1-3 months, 17 were delayed by 3-6 months,
`three were delayed by 6-12 months, and seven remain pending pre-trial, well beyond the
`
`APPLE
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1024 - PAGE 0002
`EXHIBIT 1024 - PAGE 0002
`
`
`
`earlier trial date the Board accepted at face value. Another15 litigations were terminated
`without any ruling on validity (for reasons including settlement, bankruptcy, and summary
`judgmenton other issues).
`
`TeninatedDs
`
`Stil Unresolved SR
`
`6-12m. i
`
`3-6.ET
`
`1-3mo.
`
`<imo. 9
`
`OnTime
`
`Conclusions
`
`The Board’s reliance on scheduled trial dates has proven remarkably inaccurate, and our
`results contradict the Board’s stated practice under Fintiv of simply accepting nominal trial
`dates at face value underFintiv factor two. Trial dates in patentlitigation are not stable and
`make a very poor barometerfor evaluating the potential efficiency of denying institution
`
`based on a parallel proceeding.
`
`[1] Our methodology counted AIAtrials individually, including when multiple petitions
`were related to the sameparallel litigation. The percentages remained approximately the
`sameif related AIAtrials were grouped bylitigation, with errors in predicting future trial dates
`occurring in 95% of related proceedings.
`
`APPLE
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1024 - PAGE 0003
`EXHIBIT 1024 - PAGE 0003
`
`
`
`Copyright © 2021, Perkins Coie LLP. All Rights Reserved.
`
`APPLE
`APPLE
`EXHIBIT 1024 - PAGE 0004
`EXHIBIT 1024 - PAGE 0004
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
