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

June 6, 2025

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit definitively held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs that concern expired patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied a joint motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of inter partes review when it was uncertain that all defendants would be bound by the statutory estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 30, 2025

A district court recently dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), finding that the storage and distribution of products from an Amazon warehouse was not sufficient to establish that warehouse as a regular and established place of business in the district.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 27, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that statements made during prosecution of a parent application before the asserted claims were allowed amounted to a prosecution disclaimer that extended to subsequent patents in the family. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected an attempt by the patentee to resurrect the claim scope through a unilateral, self-serving statement made in later applications in the family.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.

...

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.