IPR Grounds Doomed for Failure to Show Patent Reference Was Supported by Disclosures in Priority Application

July 22, 2024

Reading Time : 3 min

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied institution of an inter partes review, in part because the petitioner failed to show that a key reference qualified as prior art. The PTAB ruled that the petitioner was required to explain how a patent application publication was entitled to the priority date of a provisional application to qualify as prior art under AIA §§ 102(a) and (d)(2). Because the petitioner did not provide any analysis, there was no basis to find that the patent application publication was prior art.

The challenged claims related to methods of performing a hydraulic fracturing plan. The petitioner asserted five grounds of unpatentability, three of which relied on a patent application publication as either the sole or primary reference in anticipation or obviousness challenges. The patent owner’s preliminary response challenged the status of the patent application publication as prior art. The patent owner argued that under a PTAB precedential decision, the petitioner had failed to meet its initial burden to show in the petition how the subject matter in the publication was supported by disclosures in the provisional application. See Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc., IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 at 32-34 (PTAB Mar. 10, 2023) (precedential as to § II.E.3).

The PTAB first explained that a petitioner has the burden to show that a reference cited in a ground of unpatentability qualifies as prior art. The PTAB then explained that if the petitioner wishes to rely on an earlier provisional application for priority, the petitioner has to show that the provisional application describes the subject matter that is relied on in the patent application publication. Furthermore, because priority claims are not examined by the USPTO, the PTAB cannot simply assume that a patent application publication is entitled to an earlier priority date. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As such, it is the petitioner’s burden to provide the necessary priority analysis.

Here, the PTAB found that the petitioner did not provide any analysis in the petition, nor was the provisional application introduced into the record. After the patent owner challenged the status of the patent application publication as prior art, the petitioner sought a preliminary reply to cure the deficiencies in the petition. But the PTAB denied the petitioner’s request because the petitioner could have reasonably foreseen that the patent owner would challenge the patent application publication’s status as prior art based on the filing dates at issue.

The PTAB concluded that there was no reasonable likelihood of success for grounds relying on the patent application publication because the petitioner had failed to make the necessary showing that the patent application publication was prior art. The PTAB rejected the other asserted grounds because the PTAB found that the references did not teach certain elements required by the claims. The petition was denied.

Practice Tip

The petitioner in an AIA trial proceeding always has the burden to show that a reference cited in a ground of unpatentability qualifies as prior art. For patents and patent application publications, to the extent that the petitioner must establish priority to an earlier application, the petitioner should introduce the priority document into the record and provide analysis showing how the subject matter from the reference document is supported by the disclosures of the priority document. A patent owner should scrutinize the petition for defects in the analysis of how a reference is alleged to qualify as prior art. For further analysis of the precedential Penumbra decision, see Akin IP Newsflash, PTAB: Dynamic Drinkware Written Description Requirement Inapplicable to Post-AIA Patents (Jan. 30, 2024).

Intelligent Wellhead Sys., Inc. v. Downing Wellhead Equip., LLC, IPR2024-00256, Paper 11 (PTAB June 5, 2024).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 1, 2025

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry applied when evaluating the claims of a patent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.

...

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.