PTAB SOP 1 Explains APJ Paneling Process

04 December 2018 PharmaPatents Blog
Authors: Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff

Recently the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) revised several of its Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), including PTAB SOP 1 which relates to how Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) are assigned to cases. SOP 1 also explains why a panel might change, and the limited use of expanded panels.

PTAB SOP 1 – Assigning APJs

Revised PTAP SOP 1 outlines a hierarchy of considerations behind how APJs are assigned to cases. These include, in general order of importance:

  • Avoiding conflicts of interest
  • The preference of an APJ for ex parte appeals vs. other cases
  • Maintaining workflow/workload
  • Assigning cases to APJs with a relevant technical background

Consideration also is given to impaneling newer APJs with more experienced APJs, and assigning related cases to the same or overlapping panels.

Because I often request an oral hearing, I was interested to see the additional considerations for cases with oral hearings:

  • Unless the needs of the PTAB require otherwise, ex parte appeals with hearings will be assigned to APJs who are paneled on ex parte appeals only.
  • At least two APJs serving in Alexandria or a regional office should be assigned to an ex parte appeal with a hearing. (The two judges need not serve in the same office.)
  • APJs from different technology clusters may be assigned to accommodate a heard ex parte appeal conducted outside of the Alexandria office.

PTAB SOP 1 – Panel Changes

New to revised SOP 1 is more transparency on panel changes. SOP 1 explains three categories of reasons for panel changes:

  • recusal due to conflict
  • unavailability of an APJ (e.g., leave)
  • a need to meet PTAB deadlines

If the panel already has appeared in a case, the parties will be notified of a panel change by a Panel Change Order that will identify the new panel and give the category of reason for the panel change (“recusal,” “unavailability,” or “deadlines”).

PTAB SOP 1 – Expanded Panels

Revised SOP 1 also discusses expanded panels, which “may be used, where appropriate, to secure and maintain uniformity of the Board’s decisions, , in related cases ordinarily involving different three judge panels.” As noted in SOP 1, the use of expanded panels to “establish[] binding agency authority concerning major policy or procedural issues, or other issues of exceptional importance, are generally expected to be addressed using the [new Precedential Opinion Panel] procedures set forth in Standard Operating Procedure 2.”

Read more about SOP 2 in this article on PTAB Trial Insights.

An expanded panel can be requested by any Board member (including a statutory Board member), or Patent Business Unit, or requested by a party in a briefing paper. All requests for an expanded panel must be recommended by the Chief Judge and approved by the Director.

When an expanded panel is designated after a case has been assigned to a panel but before a decision is entered, the original APJs usually will be on the expanded panel. If an expanded panel is designated after entry of a panel decision in order to consider a request for rehearing, the original APJs usually will be on the expanded panel.

Peek Behind The Curtains

While most of SOP 1 explains current PTAB practices and procedures, it is interesting to have this “peek behind the curtain” and a better understanding of how APJs are assigned to cases.

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.