This segment will delve into considerations that come into play when filing or responding to post-grant review proceedings.  These considerations include issues of real party in interest, timing, and substantive arguments. To view the accompanying webinar, go to: https://www.financialpoise.com/financial-poise-webinars/things-to-consider-before-you-file-2020/

1. 1

2. 2
Practical and entertaining education for
attorneys, accountants, business owners and
executives, and investors.

3. 3
Thank You To Our Sponsor

5. Disclaimer
The material in this webinar is for informational purposes only. It should not be considered
legal, financial or other professional advice. You should consult with an attorney or other
appropriate professional to determine what may be best for your individual needs. While
Financial Poise™ takes reasonable steps to ensure that information it publishes is accurate,
Financial Poise™ makes no guaranty in this regard.
5

6. Meet the Faculty
MODERATOR:
Eugene Goryunov - Haynes & Boone
PANELISTS:
Jeremy Albright - Norton Rose Fulbright
Mike Cohen - Baxter Healthcare Company
Jon Stroud - Unified Patents
6

7. About This Webinar – Things to Consider Before
You File
This segment will delve into considerations that come into play when filing or responding to
post-grant review proceedings. These considerations include issues of real party in interest,
timing, and substantive arguments.
7

8. About This Series – Post-Grant Review Trials
The series is intended to give attendees a crash-course in post-grant review proceedings at
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Many topics will be addressed, sufficient to explain the
big picture considerations involved in this new and very popular area of law.
Each Financial Poise Webinar is delivered in Plain English, understandable to investors, business
owners, and executives without much background in these areas, yet is of primary value to
attorneys, accountants, and other seasoned professionals. Each episode brings you into engaging,
sometimes humorous, conversations designed to entertain as it teaches. Each episode in the
series is designed to be viewed independently of the other episodes so that participants will
enhance their knowledge of this area whether they attend one, some, or all episodes.
8

9. Episodes in this Series
#1: PGRT Basics
Premiere date: 7/16/20
#2: Things to Consider Before You File
Premiere date: 8/13/20
#3: Interplay With District Court Litigation
Premiere date: 9/10/20
9

10. Episode #2
Things to Consider Before You File
10

11. Filing a Petition
11

12. Who Can File a Petition?
• PGR: Petitioner must not file DJ of invalidity first
o 35 U.S.C. § 321(a); 35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. 42.201
• IPR: Petitioner must not file DJ of invalidity first and must file within one year after being
served with a complaint
o 35 U.S.C. § 315; 37 C.F.R. 42.101
 Arbitration and ITC investigation do not count
o E.g., IPR2015-00056, Paper 10 (Mar. 23, 2015)
• CBMR: Petitioner must be sued or charged with infringement
o 37 C.F.R. 42.302(a)
 Standing may exist if customer was sued and asked for indemnification
o E.g., CBM2013-00013, Paper 15 (Sept. 19, 2013); CBM2013-00055, Paper 16 (Mar. 6, 2014)
12

13. When Can a Petition be Filed?
• PGR
 Post-AIA Patent: Must be filed within 9 months after issue
o 35 U.S.C. § 321; 37 C.F.R. 42.202
• IPR: Can be filed after the later of:
 Pre-AIA Patent: Issue of the patent;
 Post-AIA Patent: (1) 9 months after issue or (2) end of PGR
o 35 U.S.C. § 311(c); 37 C.F.R. 42.102
• CBMR: Can be filed after the later of:
 Pre-AIA Patent: Issue of the patent
 Post-AIA Patent: 9 months after issue
13

14. What is the Standard to Institute PTab Trial
• PGR/CBMR:
 “More likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is
unpatentable;” or
 “Raises a novel or unsettled legal question that is important to other patents or patent
applications”
o PGR: 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) and (b); 37 C.F.R. 42.208(c) and (d); CBMR: 37 C.F.R. 42.304(a)
• IPR: “[R]easonable likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail” with respect to at least one
challenged claim in the patent
o 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. 42.108(c)
14

15. 15
0%
100%
Substantial New
Question of
Patentability
Reasonable Likelihood
of Success Clear and Convincing
Preponderance
(More Likely Than Not)
Ex Parte
Reexamination
PGR / CBMR
IPR
District Court

16. What Can a Petition be Based on?
• PGR: Patents, printed publications, evidence of public use, sale, and offer for sale, and
§§ 101, 102, 103, 112, 251.
o 35 U.S.C. § 321
• IPR: Patents and printed publications, and §§ 102, and 103.
o 35 U.S.C. § 311(b); 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(2)
• CBMR: All patents on §§ 101, 102, 103, 112, 251.
 Pre-AIA Patent: Only § 102(a) prior art (not 102(e) prior art).
 Post-AIA Patent: Patents, printed publications, evidence of public use, sale, and offer
for sale.
o PL 112-29, Sec. 18(a)(1)(C) (Sept. 16, 2011)
16

17. What Must the Petition Include?
• Identify real parties in interest;
• Identify challenged claim and grounds for the challenge;
• Provide claim construction;
• Identify exhibit numbers of supporting evidence;
• Provide copies of the supporting evidence; and
• Be accompanied by filing fee
o PGR: 35 U.S.C. § 322(a) and 37 C.F.R. 42.204(b);
o IPR: 35 U.S.C. §312(a) and 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b);
o CBMR: 37 C.F.R. 42.304(b);
o Generally: 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)
17

18. Petition Formalities
• Grounds
 Must include full analysis in petition, not just expert declaration
• Claim Construction
 Include explanation why proposed construction is correct
o 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3)
 Common defect in petitions is failure to provide proposed construction for term open to
interpretations
18

19. Fees
• IPR Request Fee: $15,500
 Additional $300 fee for each claim in request over 20
• IPR Post-Institution Fee: $15,000
 Additional $600 for each claim granted review over 15
• PGR/CBMR Request Fee: $16,000
 Additional $375 fee for each claim in request over 20
• PGR/CBMR Post-Institution Fee: $22,000
 Additional $825 for each claim granted review over 15
o 37 C.F.R. 42.15
19

20. Word Limits
• IPR
 14,000 words
 14-pt font, including any footnotes
• PGR and CBMR
 18,700 words
 14-pt font, including any footnotes
o 37 C.F.R. 42.6 and 42.24
20

21. Litigating a PTAB Trial
21

22. Timline/Filings
22

23. Timeline/Filings – Motion to Amend Pilot
23

24. Timeline/Filings – Motion to Amend Pilot
24

25. PO Preliminary Response
• Limited to reasons why trial should not be instituted
 Cannot include any amendments to the challenged claims
• Filed within 3 months after notice of filing date of petition
o PGR/CBMR: 35 U.S.C. § 323; 37 C.F.R. 42.207; IPR: 35 U.S.C. § 313; 37 C.F.R. 42.107
• PTAB will discount any conclusory, unsupported Patent Owner statements, especially
when contrary to written description
o E.g., IPR2013-00010, Paper 21 (Feb. 12, 2013)
• Petitioner can seek a reply for good cause
25

26. PO Response and/or Motion to Amend
• PO Response: May respond to any ground included in trial
 Filed after discovery is taken of Petitioner
o PGR/CBMR: 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(8); IPR: 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(8)
• PO Motion to Amend: New Motion to Amend Pilot begins March 15, 2019
 Cancel or propose substitute claims of same or narrower scope
 Can be supported with expert declaration
o PGR/CBMR: 35 U.S.C. §§ 326(a)(9) and (d)(1); IPR: 35 U.S.C. §§ 316(a)(9) and (d)(1)
o http://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/ptab_s_quick_fixes_for
o 84 Fed. Reg. 9497 (Mar. 15, 2019)
26

27. About the Faculty
27

28. About The Faculty
Eugene Goryunov - sstarzyk@financialpoise.com
Mr. Goryunov is an experienced trial lawyer that represents clients in complex patent matters
involving many diverse technologies. He is deeply involved, as trial counsel, in all aspects of
cases pending in Federal courts, at the U.S. International Trade Commission involving
Section 337 investigations, and in appeals at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit. He also regularly serves as first-chair trial counsel in post-grant review trials, on behalf
of both Petitioners and Patent Owners, pending at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. To
date, he has been involved in over one-hundred post-grant review trials. Mr. Goryunov is a
regular contributor to intellectual property publications, including the Intellectual Property
Magazine, The Patent Lawyer, and the IPO Law Journal. To date, he has published more
than sixty articles, many of which discuss post-grant review trial practice. Mr. Goryunov also
speaks about diverse issues of patent law and post-grant review trial practice. He also
teaches patent law and intellectual property litigation at the Columbia University and
previously at the University of Notre Dame.
28

29. About The Faculty
Jeremy Albright - jeremy.albright@nortonrosefulbright.com
Jeremy Albright is a senior associate at Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP. He is a patent
attorney in the mechanical arts, and his practice is focused on patent preparation and
prosecution as well as post-issuance challenges, with emphasis on inter partes reviews and
ex parte reexaminations.
29

30. About The Faculty
Mike Cohen - michael_cohen@baxter.com
Mike Cohen is an Associate General Counsel at Baxter Healthcare Corporation responsible
for managing the intellectual property portfolio strategy, freedom to operate activity, IP
related transactions, and patent litigation for various software and software-embedded
medical products. Prior to joining Baxter in 2014, Michael was an IP litigation partner in
Kirkland & Ellis LLP’s Chicago office, where he spent roughly a decade representing
Fortune 500 companies in high-stakes patent and commercial litigation matters.
Mike holds bachelor and masters degrees in engineering from Bradley University and
graduated summa cum laude with a J.D. from the University of Illinois College of Law.
Before law school, Mike was a software developer and consultant at Accenture.
30

31. About The Faculty
Jon Stroud - jonathan@unifiedpatents.com
Jonathan Stroud is Chief Intellectual Property Counsel at Unified Patents. Jonathan manages
litigation, appeals, PTAB proceedings, licensing, and settlement negotiations, legal strategy,
and prior art analysis, and prepares, drafts, and files proceedings for Unified. Previously, he
litigated at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, before the PTAB, in
district court litigation, and on appeal, and prior to that he examined implantable medical
device patents at the USPTO for 5 years. He interned at the U.S. International Trade
Commission (ITC) for Judge Robert K. Rogers, and earned his J.D. with honors from
American University Washington College of Law; his B.S. in biomedical engineering from
Tulane University; and his M.A. in print journalism from the University of Southern California.
He regularly speaks, writes, and lectures on patent law, and is an adjunct professor of law at
American, teaching PTAB practice.
31

32. Questions or Comments?
If you have any questions about this webinar that you did not get to ask during the live
premiere, or if you are watching this webinar On Demand, please do not hesitate to email us
at info@financialpoise.com with any questions or comments you may have. Please include
the name of the webinar in your email and we will do our best to provide a timely response.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The material in this presentation is for general educational purposes
only. It has been prepared primarily for attorneys and accountants for use in the pursuit of
their continuing legal education and continuing professional education.
32

33. About Financial Poise
33
Financial Poise™ has one mission: to provide
reliable plain English business, financial, and legal
education to individual investors, entrepreneurs,
business owners and executives.
Visit us at www.financialpoise.com
Our free weekly newsletter, Financial Poise
Weekly, updates you on new articles published
on our website and Upcoming Webinars you
may be interested in.
To join our email list, please visit:
https://www.financialpoise.com/subscribe/