Does Spike in IPR Settlements Signify Petitioner Success?

05 August 2015 PTAB Trial Insights Blog

The most recent IPR statistics have shown a sharp increase in the number of settlements, both before and after institution decisions.

What is most remarkable is the huge spike in settlements prior to institution.  In fiscal year 2015, the number of pre-institution settlements (217) has more than doubled from the prior year and also has far outstripped the number of post-institution settlements (141), which were roughly equal the prior year (with 106 pre-institution settlements and 104 post-institution settlements).

Higher Settlement Rate May Be Lowering Institution Rate

Some commentators have noted that the rates of IPR institution and final decision invalidity have declined, but this may in part result from the large increase in settlements highlighted above, which are preventing an increasingly large share of IPRs from either reaching an institution decision or a final decision.

What Is Driving Higher Settlement Rate

What may be driving some of the increase in settlements is the early strong results for petitioners and the recognition on the part of patent owners that a majority of IPRs were ending unfavorably for patentees.  A primary advantage of settling before institution is to avoid the institution decision, which itself can create a cloud of uncertainty over a patent.  In a decision to institute IPR, the PTAB provides a carefully reasoned statement of why at least one claim is likely to be unpatentable, so the patent owner can avoid this by settling before institution.

If Parties Want To Settle

Filing a patent owner preliminary response after a petition for IPR is filed is one way to increase the amount of time available to reach a pre-institution settlement.  If the 3 month period for filing the optional patent owner preliminary response expires without a response being filed, the PTAB may render a decision to institute sooner since it has no counter-arguments from the patent owner to consider.  However, even if a patent owner preliminary response is filed, the PTAB may not always take a full 3 months to issue its decision.  See Quillin et al., PTAB Average Time To Decision In IPRs May Surprise You.  For this reason, parties will need to move as quickly as possible if they wish to settle prior to institution.  Upon reaching an agreement to settle, parties may request confidentiality as to the settlement and file a joint motion to terminate the IPR.  In general, the later the settlement is reached following an institution decision, the harder it may be to terminate the IPR (compare Sony Corp. v. Tessera, Inc., IPR2012-00033, Paper No. 39, in which termination was granted just prior to the final hearing, to Blackberry Corp. v. Mobilemedia Ideas LLC, IPR2013-00016, Paper No. 31, in which termination was denied just prior to the final hearing).

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.

Insights

Hatch Comments on DNC-Related Construction Projects in Milwaukee
14 June 2019
Milwaukee Business Journal
Bernard Quoted on Debt-Relief Settlement with ITT Tech Lender
14 June 2019
Wall Street Journal
Dodd and Daughter Profiled in Wisconsin Golf
13 June 2019
Wisconsin Golf
Brinckerhoff Comments on SCOTUS Ruling in Patent Case
11 June 2019
Intellectual Property Magazine
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ
Foley's Government Contracts Annual Update
16 October 2019
Liviona, MI