Thursday, September 29, 2022
In 2020, the Patent Trademark and Appeals Board identified six factors that weigh for or against an institution of proceedings in parallel district court litigation, which the PTAB can consider when deciding whether to use discretion to deny the institution. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB 2020).
In June 2022, the USPTO issued interim guidance addressing the discretionary denials over post-grant proceedings associated with parallel ITC proceedings or district court litigation. The guidance noted that the PTAB will not rely on the Fintiv factors to discretionarily deny the institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability. Further, the PTAB will not discretionarily reject an institution, given parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.
For those with parallel district court litigation, counsel must ensure sufficient evidence of unpatentability is provided at the institution stage and, if appropriate, provide a Sotera stipulation to avoid Fintiv discretionary denial successfully.
This CLE webinar will examine the USPTO's new Fintiv guidance on discretionary denials. The panel will discuss the implications of the new guidance and provide best practices for addressing discretionary denials.Outline
- New Fintiv guidance
- Implications for discretionary denials
- Sotera stipulations
- Minimizing the risk of discretionary denials
The panel will review these and other key issues:
- What are the implications of the new guidance for discretionary denials?
- Under what circumstances should counsel consider making Sotera stipulations?
- What steps should counsel take to minimize the risk of discretionary denials?
Thursday, September 29, 2022
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.