Insights: Alerts Publications Must Be Accessible to Persons of Ordinary Skill
In the inter partes reviews, Medtronic asserted as a ground of invalidity a combination of four references—the slides and video referenced above, as well as a textbook chapter and a published patent application. Patent owner Dr. Mark Barry contended that the slides and video were not “printed publications” as required by § 311(b) because the video was not “printed” and neither the slides nor the video were sufficiently available to persons of ordinary skill in the art to be considered a “publication.”
According to Medtronic and its declarants, the slides and video were included in a binder that was distributed to approximately 20 interested surgeons with no restriction on redistribution at a conference in Colorado Springs in 2003. However, on cross-examination, Medtronic’s declarant stated that the surgeons invited to attend the conference where the slides and video were distributed were “experts within the field,” voted upon by an executive board for admission, and required to fulfill membership guidelines including approval from their hospitals, research and data collection, and sharing of manuscripts.
The Board first concluded that the video was “printed” because it was found in the indicia stored on the disc. However, the Board then determined that neither the slides nor the video were “publications” because there was no evidence to establish that they were distributed to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Instead, the Board noted that the surgeons who attended the conference and received the video and slides were experts. Thus, the evidence presented was insufficient to demonstrate how the video and slides would be available to persons of ordinary skill. Further, the Board found that the evidence was insufficient to establish that interested and ordinarily skilled persons could have located the video and slides after exercising reasonable diligence.
Challenges to the public accessibility of references in inter partes review proceedings are relatively infrequent. In these proceedings, where the publication of the video and slides was not immediately apparent, evidence of distribution to a select group of experts was insufficient to demonstrate accessibility to persons of ordinary skill in the art.
John C. Alemanni
Andrew W. Rinehart
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.