Failure to Prove Admissibility of Prior Art Dooms IPR Challenge

Jan 13, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) simultaneously granted a patent owner’s motion to exclude a key piece of prior art for lack of authentication, and issued a final written decision upholding all of the challenged patent claims. The key prior art was a technical article bearing a footer with the mark “© 1999 IEEE” and an ISSN number. In its petition, the petitioner claimed the article was printed in a particular journal on an exact publication date, but this information was nowhere to be found in the prior art itself. The patent owner objected to the authenticity of this exhibit and when the petitioner did not serve any additional evidence in response to this objection, the patent owner filed a motion to exclude the prior art. The PTAB granted this motion to exclude, holding that neither the copyright date, the ISSN number, nor the IEEE inscription were sufficient to support a finding that the article was printed in the journal or on the date alleged by the petitioner. Without this key prior art in evidence, the petitioner’s IPR challenge necessarily failed.

TRW Auto. U.S. LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc., IPR2014-01347 (PTAB January 6, 2016) [Fitzpatrick (opinion), Grossman, Calve (dissent)]

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice for failing to plausibly allege patent infringement. The court found that the allegations of direct infringement were insufficiently pled where the images of the accused product included in the complaint did not appear to show a particular necessary element of the claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The District of New Jersey recently denied the litigants’ request for a briefing schedule to resolve a dispute about a proposed discovery confidentiality order, and also denied extending the deadlines for the defendants’ invalidity and non-infringement contentions. At issue was the scope of the FDA and patent prosecution bars in the confidentiality order.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 27, 2026

The USPTO Director denied a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial of two inter partes review (IPR) petitions, citing the petitioner’s “well-settled expectation” that it would not be accused of infringing the two challenged patents. The Director’s conclusion was based on the petitioner’s decade-long business relationship with the original owner of the challenged patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

© 2026 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.