Nearly Identical Petitions Fail Under Both Post-Grant Review and Inter Partes Review Standards

Jun 14, 2019

Reading Time : 1 min

In declining to institute either petition, the PTAB explained that although the challenged patent was PGR-eligible, petitioner had failed to demonstrate that at least one of the challenged claims was unpatentable in view of the asserted prior art. Because petitioner’s analysis in the IPR petition was “substantially similar” to the analysis in its PGR petition, the PTAB also denied institution of the IPR. The PTAB denied the IPR petition despite the different standards for PGR and IPR institution. Specifically, a PGR may only be instituted if the petitioner demonstrates “that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” In contrast, to institute an IPR, the petitioner must demonstrate “that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”

Even though the standards for instituting a PGR and IPR are different, the PTAB denied the IPR because the substantially similar arguments that had been made—and were previously rejected by the PTAB in the PGR—were also insufficient to satisfy the IPR institution threshold.

Practice Tip: Although the standard for instituting a PGR is different from that for instituting an IPR, the PTAB’s application of such standards may not be sufficiently different—in some instances—to expect different outcomes regarding the merits of petitioner’s substantive arguments.

Align Tech., Inc. v. 3Shape A/S, IPR2019-00117, Paper No. 8 (PTAB May 14, 2019)

Share This Insight

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.