A First Look at Inter Partes Review Filings

27 September 2012 PharmaPatents Blog

Since inter partes review proceedings became available on September 16, 2012, thirteen petitions for inter partes review have been filed. Of these, three were filed against patents examined in Group 1600: U.S. Patent 7,790,869, U.S. Patent 7,713,698, and U.S. Patent 6,258,540.

Clerical Deficiency Not Fatal to Filing Date

One petition with clerical deficiencies was deemed “complete” and conditionally granted a filing date, as long as the defects are corrected within 5 business days of the notice. This opportunity to correct clerical errors is consistent with final rule 37 CFR § 42.104, which provides that a Petitioner may file a motion to correct “a clerical or typographical mistake in the petition,” and that such a petition, if granted, will “not change the filing date of the petition.”

Who Has Filed IPR Petitions?

Robert Sterne of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox filed four of the thirteen petitions, all on behalf of Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC. My colleague Matthew Smith has filed three petitions, each on behalf of different parties. Robert Lawler of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c. has filed two petitions, both on behalf of Illumina, Inc.

Learning as We Go

With inter partes review documents readily accessible through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board portal, practitioners and stakeholders can watch inter partes review proceedings progress, and see how the USPTO implements the new law and applies the new rules on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, the twelve-month statutory time period for completing inter partes review proceedings promises to yield final decisions in a relatively short time period, further building a body of examples to draw from. No doubt these first cases will be followed closely and scrutinized for strategies to adapt and lessons to learn.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Text Messages, EDiscovery, and the New Threat to Privacy
21 November 2019
CMS Proposes Enhanced Scrutiny over Medicaid Supplemental Payments
20 November 2019
Health Care Law Today
The Purpose of a Corporation
November 2019
Legal News: Business Law
Should This Be a "Mobility" Industry Blog?
19 November 2019
Dashboard Insights
PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
Madison CLE Days
18-19 December 2019
Madison, WI
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
HFMA MA-RI Annual Compliance Update
12 December 2019
Boston, MA