PTAB Invalidates Patent Despite Settlement

04 March 2014 IP Litigation Current Blog

As more and more AIA post-grant review decisions are being issued, practitioners should be aware that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may rule on the validity of the patent at issue despite settlement by the parties. Unlike ex parte and inter partes reexamination proceedings, AIA statutory provisions allow for settlement of post-grant trials before the Board. However, recent PTAB decisions show the broad discretion used in determining whether a post-grant proceeding will be terminated upon settlement between the parties.

In Interthinx, Inc. v. Corelogic Solutions, LLC, the PTAB issued a final written decision on the validity of a patent, cancelling the claims of the patent even though a district court had previously ruled them valid, the parties had reached settlement, and the patent eventually expired. CBM2012-00007, Paper No. 58 (PTAB, Jan. 30, 2014).

Interthinx petitioned the PTAB for covered business method (CBM) review of U.S. Patent No. 5,361,201 (the ’201 patent) on September 19, 2012. The challenged claims focused on a computer implemented method for appraising a real estate property. Interthinx, along with others, had been sued by Corelogic for patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas. Adopting the claim constructions applied by the district court, the PTAB instituted trial on January 31, 2013.

During this time, the district court case progressed. Following a jury verdict on September 28, 2012, the district court entered judgment of non-infringement in favor of Interthinx. See CoreLogic Information Solutions, Inc. v. Fiserv, Inc., No. 2:10-CV-132-RSP (E.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2012). The court also found that the patent was valid. The parties filed several post-trial motions including (1) Corelogic’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law that Interthinx infringed the ’201 patent, (2) Interthinx’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law that certain claims were invalid under § 102 and/or § 103, and (3) Interthinx’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law that the ’201 patent was invalid under § 101. The district court denied all post-trial motions on September 30, 2013. No appeal has been filed. However, the patent is still at issue in a later-filed case.  See CoreLogic Solutions, LLC v. Redfin, No. 2:12-CV-305 (E.D. Tex.).

In October 2013, the parties moved to terminate the CBM review proceeding. Although the PTAB terminated Interthinx’s involvement in the proceeding, the PTAB retained jurisdiction to issue a final written decision pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 327(a). After an oral hearing where only Corelogic presented arguments, the PTAB issued its final written decision invalidating the contested claims of the patent.

The PTAB first found that the district court’s holding did not bar its review of the § 101 case under res judicata or collateral estoppel because the USPTO was not a party to the district court action and did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the patentability issues there.

Moreover, the PTAB explained that the issue decided in the CBM proceeding is not identical to the issue litigated in the district court because of different subject matter eligibility standards applied by the district court and the PTAB. The district court applied the clear and convincing standard while the PTAB reviews the patentability of a claim under a preponderance of evidence standard. Corelogic also argued that the PTAB should apply the higher standard because the ’201 patent expired and could not be amended. However, the Board found that the statute does not provide an exception for expired patents.

Additionally, the PTAB found that the jury’s finding that Interthinx had not proved any claim of the ’201 patent invalid was not binding on the PTAB. The PTAB then concluded that all four contested claims were unpatentable under § 101 and invalid under § 102 and § 103 in view of a prior art publication that was also before the district court. The PTAB cancelled all four claims.

Because of the PTAB’s decision in Interthinx v. Corelogic, practitioners considering post-grant review proceedings should be mindful of the relevant time periods as they impact whether and when a party should seek post-grant review, whether and when the parties should focus on settlement, and the impact (if any) of a district court judgment in concurrent litigation. A patent owner just may end up continuing to expend resources litigating the validity of its patent even where a district court has ruled it valid and it has settled with the accused infringer.

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

California Statute Offers Dramatic Change to Independent Contractor, Franchise-Franchisee Relationships
20 September 2019
Legal News: Distribution & Franchise
AI Ouch! AI Job Interview Law Starting in 2020!
20 September 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.