PTAB Finds Patent Is Ineligible for Post Grant Review—Claim Submitted During Prosecution (but Canceled Before Issuance) Had Adequate Support in Parent Application

Apr 27, 2017

Reading Time : 1 min

PGR review is available only to patent applications, and any patents that issue thereon, that contain, or contained at any time, a claim to an invention having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. See AIA § 3(n)(1). The application that led to the ’250 patent was filed after the eligibility date, but claimed priority to an application filed in 2011. To establish PGR eligibility, the petitioner argued that original pending claim 17 (which was presented in prosecution, but canceled before the ’250 patent issued) was not supported by the parent application and therefore could not claim priority back to 2011. Specifically, the petitioner argued that pending claim 17 lacked written support and was not enabled by the parent application.

Both parties submitted, and relied heavily on expert declarations in arguing whether the claims were enabled and adequately described. The PTAB, however, found that the petitioner’s contentions were largely based on the conclusory testimony of its expert. Because the petitioner’s expert provided no analysis regarding his underlying opinions, the PTAB gave his testimony no weight. Conversely, the PTAB found patent owner’s expert testimony to be well-reasoned as supported by sufficient evidence. Ultimately, the PTAB held that pending claim 17 had adequate support in the parent specification, and, therefore, the 2011 effective priority date rendered the ’250 patent ineligible for PGR.

Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, PGR2016-00043, Paper No. 9 (PTAB Apr. 3, 2017) (Cherry, joined by Kim and Ippolito)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

November 17,2025

The district of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s partial motion to dismiss pre-suit willful infringement from the litigation, finding instead that the allegations taken as a whole were sufficient to support pre-suit willfulness at the pleading stage. Specifically, the court found that the allegations as to the defendant’s involvement in a related foreign opposition proceeding and participation in the relevant industry were accompanied by detailed factual support that sufficiently pleaded willful infringement for the pre-suit period.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 14, 2025

The Ninth Circuit recently reversed a district court’s decision to strike a plaintiff’s trade secret claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) at the discovery stage. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit made clear that under the DTSA, whether a party defined their trade secret with sufficient particularity is a question of fact that generally does not lend itself to resolution in the absence of at least some discovery. This ruling contrasts with the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), which requires a party to define their trade secrets with reasonable particularity before commencing discovery.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a summary judgment ruling of invalidity, holding that the district court erred in applying preclusive effect to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s unpatentability findings regarding other claims in the same patent. In doing so, the Federal Circuit reiterated that issue preclusion does not apply where the prior factual determinations were made under a lower standard of proof.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently clarified the requirement for work disclosed in a reference to qualify as “by another” under pre-AIA Sections 102(a) and (e), holding that there must be complete inventive identity between the information disclosed in the asserted reference and the inventors named on the relevant patent. 

...

Read More

© 2025 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.