PTAB Terminates IPR Sua Sponte Where Claims Indefinite

02 April 2014 IP Litigation Current Blog

As dictated by 35 U.S.C. § 311, a petitioner can pursue inter partes review (“IPR”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) based on certain grounds of anticipation or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103, respectively. This prior-art based inquiry generally involves an evaluation of patents or printed publications that the petitioner relies on in an IPR petition. Other potential invalidity theories, such as indefiniteness under § 112, cannot form the basis for instituting an IPR. However, a recent decision from the PTAB illustrates a potential outcome in an IPR where the Board has nonetheless determined, on its own, that the challenged claims are indefinite.

Earlier this month, the PTAB terminated an IPR sua sponte, finding that the challenged claims were indefinite and, therefore, could not be construed – a step that is required before evaluating invalidity for obviousness. Blackberry Corp. v. MobileMedia Ideas, LLC, Case IPR2013-00036, Paper 65 (PTAB Mar. 7, 2014) (“Decision”). At issue in the IPR were claims directed towards a “mobile communication apparatus.” Each of the challenged claims recited a “processing means for encrypting the information signals prior to storage in said memory means.” The Board found that the recitation of this means-plus-function element invoked the requirements of § 112, ¶ 6, which states:

An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

(emphasis added.)†

Regarding a “processing means for encryption,” the challenged patent’s specification described only a “microprocessor and the like.” The Board found that the disclosure of an apparent general purpose computer, without specifying the implemented algorithm, to be insufficient under § 112, ¶ 6. Decision, p. 13 (citing WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“computer-implemented means-plus-function term is limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof, and the corresponding structure is the algorithm.”).

Because the challenged claims were found to be indefinite, the Board determined that the proper scope of the claims could not be established without speculation. The Board, therefore, concluded that “we cannot conduct a necessary factual inquiry for determining obviousness—ascertaining differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art” (Decision, p. 20), and, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.72, terminated the IPR without issuing a final written decision.

This decision is notable, because IPRs are recognized as being limited to addressing invalidity based on §§ 102 and 103. Petitioners and patent owners should, however, consider whether other issues, including § 112 indefiniteness, may prevent the Board from properly construing the patent’s claims. Where the Board perceives an inability to determine proper claim scope, the Board may terminate the proceeding without issuing a final decision, or may not institute the proceeding in the first place. It remains to be seen what impact a PTAB finding of indefiniteness could have in co-pending district court litigation, but a decision by the PTAB opining on the indefiniteness of a claim may have persuasive effect. In this case, however, the district court had previously declined to find the claims indefinite (although the court acknowledged the issue), but later granted summary judgment of non-infringement, and the case was dismissed prior to the Board’s decision.

—-

†The Board referred to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 112 due to the filing date of MoblieMedia’s challenged patent. Section 112, ¶ 6 appears as § 112(f) in the post-AIA version of the statute.

 

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

A Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
19 July 2019
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
Cloud security inadequate for Cyber threats, are you surprised?
19 July 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Blockchain: A Tool With a Future in Healthcare
18 July 2019
Health Care Law Today
Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ