In Samsung Electronics Co. v. Clear Imaging Research, LLC, IPR2020-01399, Samsung maintained that it had eliminated duplicative efforts by stipulating not to “pursue district court invalidity challenges based on the petition’s asserted grounds or grounds sharing the same primary reference.” (Paper 13, p. 20, Feb. 3, 2021). In addition, only 3 of 29 challenged claims were also in the district court litigation.
The PTAB panel stated that “the mere existence of non-overlapping claims does not support Petitioner’s position that this factor favors institution.” Id. at p. 21. The PTAB panel went on to say “In short, notwithstanding the stipulation, there will likely be overlap between the issues raised in the Petition and the parallel litigation. Because overlapping claims are challenged based on the same prior art in both the Petition and in the parallel litigation, we find that factor 4 weighs slightly in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution under § 314(a).” Id. at p. 24.
Thus, it appears a stipulation that doesn’t waive all invalidity arguments in district court litigation may not be persuasive to the PTAB. The PTAB precedential decision of Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp. stated that a broad stipulation to waive “any ground raised, or that could have been reasonably raised” in the district court would improve the chances of institution. (IPR2020-01019, Paper 12, Dec. 1, 2020).
Of course, the other main Fintiv factor is timing. The Samsung IPR petition was filed about 10 months after the complaint was served. The district court litigation was in the Eastern District of Texas, before Judge Gilstrap, and trial was scheduled 10 months before a Final Written Decision would be due in the IPR. This confirms that the best practice is to file an IPR within a few months of the complaint being served, especially for fast-track courts.
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.