In an Inter Partes Review (IPR), the burden of proof and persuasion lies with the petitioner to demonstrate "unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence" under 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). “[T]hat burden never shifts to the patentee.” Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, to invalidate a claim in an IPR, the petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that a claim in a patent is unpatentable.
To prove that a claim is unpatentable for violating “obviousness” requirements under 35 U.S.C §103, a petitioner is required to show that a person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine or modify prior art teachings and would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Specifically, “[a]n obviousness determination requires finding that a POSITA [Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art] would have been motivated to combine or modify the teachings in the prior art and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Endo Pharm., Inc. v. Actavis LLC, 922 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (emphasis added). Further, “[w]hether there was a motivation to combine references, and a reasonable expectation of success in doing so to meet the limitations of the claimed invention are questions of fact.” Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC, 925 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (emphasis added).
As factual questions, they require substantiation. Specifically, "a conclusory assertion with no explanation is inadequate to support a finding that there would have been a motivation to combine" (TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Sys., 942 F.3d 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Accordingly, the petitioner must identify the evidence supporting the challenge to each claim with particularity to meet their burden.
For an IPR to be instituted by the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (PTAB), the Petitioner must meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating that there is a “reasonable likelihood” that the petitioner would prevail as to at least one of the claims challenged. Accordingly, under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), the Petition must identify “with particularity … the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” As stressed by the Federal Circuit:
"It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial Petition identify with particularity the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim. . . . [T]he expedited nature of IPRs bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their Petition to institute.”
Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1286−87 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Therefore, it is the burden of the Petitioner to identify in the Petition that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention by combining references as proposed in the Petition. “Failure to prove the matter as required ... means that the party with the burden of persuasion loses on that point—thus, if the fact trier of the issue is left uncertain, the party with the burden [the petitioner] loses.” Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat'l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
For Patent Owners
Importantly, the burden of proving a reasonable expectation of success is on the Petitioner and never shifts to the Patent Owner. As a result, it is not the burden of the Patent Owner to demonstrate that the proposed combination would not work.
As a result, a Patent Owner can reasonably expect to win an IPR if the Petition fails to address the reasonable expectation of success requirement. For example, in Juniper Networks, Inc. v Correct Transmission, LLC, IPR2021-00682, the Board observed that the “Petitioner [Juniper] leaps silently over the requirement to evidence a reasonable expectation of success to establish obviousness” and, as a result, “[found] Petitioner’s alleged evidence of the requisite reasonable expectation of success fails to meet its evidentiary burden.” Accordingly, the reasonable expectation of success must be specifically addressed by Petitioner’s expert and not simply assumed.
In addition, it can be helpful for the Patent Owner’s expert to explain why there is not a reasonable expectation of success. As the Federal Circuit states, “[w]hether the prior art discloses a claim limitation, whether a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify or combine teachings in the prior art, and whether she would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so are questions of fact.” (Univ. of Strathclyde v. Clear-Vu Lighting LLC, 17 F.4th 155, 160 (Fed. Cir. 2021)) (emphasis added). Further, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that “[i]t is within the discretion of the trier of fact to give each item of evidence such weight as it feels appropriate.” (Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Specifically, in the case of an IPR, where the Board is the trier of fact, the Federal Circuit held that “[t]he Board was within its discretion to weigh the credibility of expert testimony .”(Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children's Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). Therefore, if the Patent Owner adduces expert testimony about the likelihood of success that contradicts that of the Petitioners expert, the Board as the trier of fact, has to weigh the credibility of the expert testimony to determine if the Petitioner has met their burden. In doing so, the Patent Owner increases the likelihood that the trier of fact may find that a reasonable likelihood of success has not been shown.
For Petitioners
As the Federal Circuit explains, “it [is], at all times, [petitioner’s] burden to show that the claims would have been obvious, including that a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention (Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharm. Int'l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2021)). Therefore, it is critical that the expert declaration that is submitted in support of the Petition expressly address the reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention when combining references under 35 U.S.C. §103. Omitting these elements from the evidentiary record cannot be subsequently corrected by attorney argument because “[w]hether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify or combine teachings in the prior art, and whether he would have had a reasonable expectation of success, are questions of fact.” (In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2017). As a result, it is crucial that the expert declaration submitted in support of the Petition explicitly addresses the reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention by combining the references when alleging that the challenged patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Neglecting to include these elements in the evidence cannot be rectified solely through attorney argument because “Attorney argument is no substitute for evidence.” (Enzo Biochem v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 1284, (Fed. Circ. 2005). In fact, the Federal Circuit holds that “a party’s "unsworn attorney argument . . . is not evidence" and thus cannot rebut record evidence.” (Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont'l Auto. Sys., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284-85 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Therefore, in order for a Petitioner to meet its burden under 35 U.S.C. §103, the Expert declaration submitted with the Petition must provide explanations why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have (i) been motivated to combine or modify the teachings in the prior art, and (ii) that had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Failing to address the reasonable expectation requirement in the expert declaration will likely result in the PTAB finding that the Petitioner has failed to meet its burden in establishing that the patent claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103.
- Shareholder
Brandon is a technology-first patent attorney with extensive experience in the complete patent lifecycle, from prosecution before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office through monetization and post grant challenges.
In his ...
- Shareholder
Dan Golub offers clients deep domestic and international legal experience spanning global patent strategy, protection, licensing, and litigation. He effectively translates complex legal issues to business leaders ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- Artificial Ingenuity: Is Generative AI the New 'Person of Ordinary Skill' in Patent Law?
- The Expiration of the After Final Consideration Pilot Program 2.0 (AFCP 2.0)
- Patently Unclear: Why Result-Oriented Claims Don’t Make the Cut Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
- Make Your Invention The Priority, What Track-1 Can Do For You!
- Navigating Final Rejections in Patent Prosecution: AFCP 2.0 vs. 37 CFR § 1.116
- A Clear POV on Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101: Contour’s Claims Zoom Back Into Focus in Contour v. GoPro
- Understanding the Recent Federal Circuit Decision in Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. on Patent Ineligibility
- Federal Circuit Clarifies Obviousness-Type Double Patenting in Allergan v. MSN Laboratories: The Impact of Patent Term Adjustments on First-Filed Patents
- The Risks and Rewards of Using Open Source Software
- Don't Let Your Trade Secrets Walk Out the Door With Your Employees: Patent Them!
Archives
- November 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- October 2022
- August 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- June 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- October 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017