throbber

`

`the following set of nonexclusive factors (the Fintiv factors) that the PTAB considers on a case(cid:173)
`
`specific basis in determining whether to institute an AIA post-grant proceeding where there is
`
`parallel district comt litigation:
`
`1. whether the comt granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a
`proceeding is instituted;
`
`2. proximity of the comt's trial date to the Board's projected statutory deadline for a
`final written decision;
`
`3.
`
`investment in the parallel proceeding by the comt and the patties;
`
`4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding;
`
`5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same
`party; and
`
`6. other circumstances that impact the Board's exercise of discretion, including the
`merits.
`The Office issued a Request for Comments (RFC) 2 on the PTAB's current approaches to
`
`exercising discretion on whether to institute an AIA proceeding, including situations involving
`
`parallel district court litigation. The Office received 822 comments from a wide range of
`
`stakeholders. In light of the feedback received, the Office is planning to soon explore potential
`
`rulemaking on proposed approaches through an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. In
`
`the meantime, I have determined that several clarifications need to be made to the PTAB's
`
`current application of Fintiv to discretionary institution where there is parallel litigation.
`
`As explained below, to benefit the patent system and the public good, the PT AB will not
`
`rely on the Fintiv factors to discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district comt
`
`litigation where a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability. This memorandum
`
`also confirms that the precedential impmt of Fintiv is limited to facts of that case. Namely,
`
`Fintiv involved institution of an AIA proceeding with a parallel district court litigation. The
`
`2 Discretion to Institute Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 85 FR 66502 (Oct. 20,
`2020); Discretion to Institute Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; Extension of
`Comment Period, 85 FR 73437 (Nov. 18, 2020).
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 1030
`Panasonic v. UNM
`IPR2024-00364
`Page 2 of 9
`
`

`

`of the Fintiv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`plain language factors is directed to district comt litigation and does not apply to
`
`
`
`
`
`parallel U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) proceedings, as the ITC lacks authority to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`invalidate a patent and the ITC's invalidity rulings are not binding on the Office or on district
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`comts.
`
`with Sotera Wireless, Inc.,3
`Consistent
`
`the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution
`
`
`
`
`
`in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`trial date
`
`before the PTAB. Additionally, when considering the proximity of the district comt's
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to the date when the PT AB final written decision will be due, the PT AB will consider
`the median
`
`
`
`time from filing to disposition of the civil trial for the district in which the parallel litigation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`resides.
`
`
`
`4 This memorandum clarifies those practices.
`
`
`
`This memorandum is issued under the Director's authority to issue binding agency
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`guidance to govern the PTAB's implementation of various statutory provisions, including
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See, e.g.,
`directions regarding how those statutory provisions will apply to sample fact patterns.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2.
`
`35 U.S.C. 3(a)(2)(A); PTAB Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 2 at 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Compelling Merits
`
`Analysis
`
`
`
`In the AIA, Congress established post-grant proceedings, including IPR, PGR, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`covered business method (CBM) proceedings to improve and ensure patent quality by providing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"quick and cost-effective alternatives to litigation" for challenging issued patents. H.R. Rep. No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at 48; see also S. Rep. No. 110-259,
`112-98, pt. 1,
`
`
`at 20 (explaining that the "post-grant review
`
`3 Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.,
`
`IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020)
`
`(precedential as to§ II.A).
`
`
`4 https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/analysis-reports/federal-court-management-statistics
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 1030
`Panasonic v. UNM
`IPR2024-00364
`Page 3 of 9
`
`

`

`system ... will give third parties a quick, inexpensive, and reliable alternative to district court
`
`litigation to resolve questions of patent validity"). Congress granted the Office "significant
`
`power to revisit and revise earlier patent grants" as a mechanism "to improve patent quality and
`
`restore confidence in the presumption of validity that comes with issued patents." Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs., LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. 261,272 (2016) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, at 45, 48).
`
`Given those objectives, compelling, meritorious challenges will be allowed to proceed at the
`
`PTAB even where district court litigation is proceeding in parallel. Compelling, meritorious
`
`challenges are those in which the evidence, if umebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a
`
`conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. That
`
`said, the PTAB retains discretion to deny institution for proceedings where abuse has been
`
`demonstrated.
`
`Fintiv factor six reflects that the PT AB considers the merits of a petitioner's challenge
`
`when determining whether to institute a post-grant proceeding in view of parallel district court
`
`litigation. Where the information presented at the institution stage is merely sufficient to meet
`
`the statutory institution threshold,5 the PTAB has the authority, where warranted, to exercise
`
`discretion to deny institution in view of the other Fintiv factors. In contrast, where the PTAB
`
`determines that the information presented at the institution stage presents a compelling
`
`5 Institution of an IPR is authorized by statute only when "the information presented in the
`petition . .. and any response ... shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition." 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a) (2018). Similarly, institution of a PGR, including a CBM, is authorized only when "the
`information presented in the petition ... , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate
`that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is
`unpatentable" Id. § 324(a).
`
`4
`
`Exhibit 1030
`Panasonic v. UNM
`IPR2024-00364
`Page 4 of 9
`
`

`

`unpatentability challenge, that determination alone demonstrates that the PT AB should not
`
`discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.6
`
`This clarification strikes a balance among the competing concerns of avoiding potentially
`
`conflicting outcomes, avoiding overburdening patent owners, and strengthening the patent
`
`system by eliminating patents that are not robust and reliable. Consistent with Congress's giving
`
`the Office the authority to revisit issued patents, the PT AB will not deny institution based on
`
`Fintiv if there is compelling evidence of unpatentability. This approach "allows the proceeding
`
`to continue in the event that the parallel proceeding settles or fails to resolve the patentability
`
`question presented in the PTAB proceeding." Fintiv, Paper 11 at 15. The patent system and the
`
`public good benefit from instituting compelling unpatentability challenges.
`
`ITC and Fintiv
`
`In 2018, the PT AB issued a decision in NHK Spring. 7 There, the PT AB held that the
`
`advanced state of a parallel district court litigation involving similar validity disputes could be a
`
`factor weighing in favor of denying institution of an IPR because of concerns over the inefficient
`
`6 The compelling evidence test affirms the PT AB' s current approach of declining to deny
`institution under Fintiv where the evidence of record so far in the case would plainly lead to a
`conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable. See, e.g., Illumina Inc. v. Trs. of Columbia
`Univ. , IPR2020-00988, Paper 20 (PTAB Dec. 8, 2020) (declining to deny under Fintiv in light of
`strong evidence on the merits even though four factors weighed in favor of denial and remaining
`factor was neutral); Synthego C01p. v. Agilent Techs., Inc., IPR2022-00402, Paper 11 (May 31,
`2022) (granting institution as efficiency and integrity of the system would not be served by
`denying institution of petition with particularly strong evidence on the merits); Samsung Elecs.
`Co. v. Scramoge Tech., Ltd., IPR2022-00241 , Paper 10 (June 13, 2022) (Fintiv analysis
`concludes that "very strong" evidence on the merits outweigh concurrent litigation involving
`earlier scheduled trial date and significant overlap in proceedings).
`
`7 NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018)
`(precedential). This decision also based the denial of institution on Director discretion under 35
`U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`5
`
`Exhibit 1030
`Panasonic v. UNM
`IPR2024-00364
`Page 5 of 9
`
`

`

`use of PTAB's resources. NHK Spring, Paper 8 at 19- 20. Later, in 2020, the PTAB announced
`
`the Fintiv factors, which the PT AB considers when a patent owner raises an argument for
`
`discretionary denial under NHK Spring due to an earlier trial date. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 5-6. The
`
`Fintiv factors focus on the interplay between IPRs and district court litigation. Through that
`
`focus, the Fintiv factors seek to avoid duplicative efforts between the PT AB and federal district
`
`courts. For example, Fintiv factor one asks whether the "comt" has granted a stay or if one may
`
`be granted. Similarly, Fintiv factor two looks at the proximity of the "court" trial date.
`
`Likewise, Fintiv factor three concerns the amount of investment in the parallel proceeding by the
`
`"court" and the parties. Fintiv factors five and six refer to the same parallel proceeding
`
`described in factor three.
`
`Although the Fintiv factors are directed to district court litigation and not ITC
`
`proceedings, 8 the PT AB has, in the past, denied AIA reviews based on parallel ITC
`
`investigations. 9 Impo1tant differences, however, distinguish ITC investigations from patent
`
`invalidity trials in federal district courts. Unlike district comts, the ITC lacks authority to
`
`invalidate a patent and its invalidity rulings are not binding on either the Office or a district
`
`court. See Tandon Corp. v. U.S.lT.C., 831 F.2d 1017, 1019 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Therefore, an ITC
`
`determination cannot conclusively resolve an assertion of patent invalidity, which instead
`
`requires either district court litigation or a PTAB proceeding to obtain patent cancellation. Thus,
`
`denying institution because of a parallel ITC investigation will not necessarily minimize
`
`8 Fintiv refers to ITC proceedings in discussing factor one. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 8- 9. Addressing
`the situation where district comt litigation is stayed pending an ITC investigation, Fintiv states in
`dicta that "it is difficult to maintain a district comt proceeding on patent claims determined to be
`invalid at the ITC." Id. at 9.
`9 See, e.g., Philip Morris Prods. S.A. v. Rai Strategic Holdings, Inc., IPR2020-00919, Paper 9
`(PTAB Nov. 16, 2020).
`
`6
`
`Exhibit 1030
`Panasonic v. UNM
`IPR2024-00364
`Page 6 of 9
`
`

`

`potential conflicts between PT AB proceedings and district court litigation. For the foregoing
`
`reasons, the PTAB no longer discretionarily denies petitions based on applying Fintiv to a
`
`parallel ITC proceeding. This memorandum memorializes that practice. The PTAB will not
`
`discretionarily deny petitions based on applying Fintiv to a parallel ITC proceeding.
`
`Solera Stipulations
`
`Fintiv factor four looks at the overlap between the issues raised in the IPR petition and in
`
`the parallel proceeding in order to evaluate "concerns of inefficiency and the possibility of
`
`conflicting decisions." Fintiv, Paper 11 at 12. If the petition includes the same or substantially
`
`the same claims, grounds, arguments, and evidence as presented in the parallel proceeding, this
`
`fact has favored denial. Id. at 12. Conversely, if the petition includes materially different
`
`grounds, arguments, and/or evidence than those presented in the district court, this fact has
`
`tended to weigh against exercising discretion to deny institution. Id. at 12- 13.
`
`When a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district comt proceeding the same
`
`grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition, it
`
`mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between the district
`
`comt and the PTAB. See Sotera, Paper 12 at 18- 19. With such a stipulation, if an IPR or PGR
`
`is instituted, the grounds the PT AB resolves will differ from those present in the parallel district
`
`comt litigation. For these reasons, the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR
`
`or PGR in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a
`
`parallel district comt proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could
`
`have reasonably been raised in the petition. This clarification avoids inconsistent outcomes
`
`7
`
`Exhibit 1030
`Panasonic v. UNM
`IPR2024-00364
`Page 7 of 9
`
`

`

`between the PT AB and the district comt and allows the PT AB to review grounds that the parallel
`
`district court litigation will not resolve.
`
`Trial Date
`
`Fintiv factor two considers the proximity of the comt's trial date to the Board's projected
`
`statutory deadline for a final written decision. When applying this factor, the PT AB has taken
`
`the "comts' trial schedules at face value absent some strong evidence to the contrary."10 Thus,
`
`the PTAB has generally weighed this factor in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution if
`
`the trial date is scheduled before the projected statutory deadline for a final written decision.
`
`In response to the RFC, a number of commenters expressed concern with the use of trial
`
`dates as a factor. 11 Stakeholders correctly noted that scheduled trial dates are umeliable and
`
`often change. A court's scheduled trial date, therefore, is not by itself a good indicator of
`
`whether the district court trial will occur before the statutory deadline for a final written decision.
`
`Accordingly, when analyzing the proximity of the comt's trial date under factor two of
`
`Fintiv, when other relevant factors weigh against exercising discretion to deny institution or are
`
`neutral, the proximity to trial should not alone outweigh all of those other factors. See In re
`
`Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed Cir. 2009). Parties may present evidence regarding
`
`the most recent statistics on median time-to-trial for civil actions in the district comt in which the
`
`10 Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 at 13 (May 13, 2020) (informative)
`(applying the Fintiv factors articulated in the precedential Fintiv decision).
`11 See USPTO Executive Summcny of Public Views on Discretiona,y Institution of AJA
`Proceedings (Jan. 2021) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
`USPTOExecutiveSummaryofPublicViewsonDiscretionarylnstitutiononAIAProceedingsJanuary2
`021.pdt).
`
`8
`
`Exhibit 1030
`Panasonic v. UNM
`IPR2024-00364
`Page 8 of 9
`
`

`

`parallel litigation resides 12 for the PTAB's consideration. Where the parties rely on time-to-trial
`
`statistics, the PT AB will also consider additional supporting factors such as the number of cases
`
`before the judge in the parallel litigation and the speed and availability of other case dispositions.
`
`See id; In re Google LLC, No. 2021-178, 2021 WL 5292267 at *3 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
`
`Conclusion
`
`In summary, the PTAB will not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv (i) when a
`
`petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability; (ii) when a request for denial under
`
`Fintiv is based on a parallel ITC proceeding; or (iii) where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in
`
`a parallel district comt proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could
`
`have reasonably been raised in the petition. Additionally, when the PTAB is applying Fintiv
`
`factor two, the PT AB will consider the speed with which the district comt case may come to trial
`
`and be resolved. The PT AB will weigh this factor against exercising discretion to deny
`
`institution under Fintiv if the median time-to-trial is around the same time or after the projected
`
`statutory deadline for the PTAB's final written decision. That said, even if the PTAB does not
`
`deny institution under Fintiv, it retains the right to deny institution for other reasons under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 314(a), 324(a), and 325(d). For example, the PTAB may deny institution if other
`
`pertinent circumstances are present, such as abuse of process by a petitioner.
`
`This interim guidance applies to all proceedings pending before the Office. This interim
`
`guidance will remain in place until fmther notice. The Office expects to replace this interim
`
`guidance with rules after it has completed formal rulemaking.
`
`1 2
`
`The most recent statistics are available at: https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/na/federal-
`court-management-statistics/2022/03/31-1.
`
`9
`
`Exhibit 1030
`Panasonic v. UNM
`IPR2024-00364
`Page 9 of 9
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket