Need for Third-Party Discovery Favors Discretionary Denial of Post Grant Review

Feb 22, 2021

Reading Time : 3 min

Patent owner NCS Multistage Inc. filed patent infringement lawsuits against several companies in the Western District of Texas alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 10,465,445 (the “’445 patent”). These included suits against Nine Energy Service, Inc. (the “Nine litigation”) and TCO AS (the “TCO litigation”). On August 8, 2020, TCO filed a petition for post grant review of the ’445 patent. At institution, the board considered patent owner’s argument advocating for discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. section 324(a).

As an initial matter, the board addressed whether the factors related to the Director’s discretion to deny institution identified in its precedential decision Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc. applied to the present post grant review (PGR). The board found that although Fintiv involved the Director’s discretion pursuant to Section 314(a), which concerns inter partes review (IPR), and did not specifically extend its application to Section 324(a), which is the relevant statute that applies to PGR, the pertinent statutory language providing the Director with discretion to deny institution is the same in both sections. Moreover, the policy considerations associated with discretion to deny institution—including inefficiency, duplication of effort and the risk of inconsistent results—apply equally to PGRs. Therefore, the board applied the Fintiv factors to the present PGR.

The board first addressed Fintiv factors 1-5 and concluded that several of those factors favored denial of institution in view of the Nine and TCO litigations. Specifically, the board found that the proximity of the court’s trial date to the board’s Final Written Decision under factor 2 weighed in favor of denial because the Nine litigation was scheduled to commence four months before the Final Written Decision was due. The board also held under factor 3 that there had been considerable investment in the Nine litigation, with the parties having exchanged infringement and invalidity contentions and substantial document production and the court having held a Markman hearing. Moreover, under factor 4 the board concluded that although the PGR challenged two claims—claims 26 and 56—not involved in the Nine and TCO litigations, the PGR was directed to substantially the same claims, as well as the same grounds, as the parallel proceedings, especially considering patent owner’s stipulation that it would not assert claims 26 and 56 against petitioner. The board found that only factor 5, which evaluates whether the petitioner and defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party, weighed against denial because petitioner was not a party to the Nine litigation.

The board then turned to Fintiv factor 6, which allows it to assess “other circumstances” that impact its exercise of discretion, including the merits. Under this factor, the board considered petitioner’s allegation of invalidating prior sales and use of its product, called the TDP-PO plug, by a third-party foreign entity and whether any necessary discovery on that issue might impact the proceeding. The patent owner contended that these allegations involved “highly fact-intensive issues” and argued that the “critical discovery that will need to be conducted to determine if the [alleged sales and public use] qualify as invalidating prior art” weighed in favor of denial. Petitioner countered that no “hypothetical discovery” is needed to decide the prior sales/use issue and that patent owner will have an opportunity to challenge petitioner’s evidence and depose its declarant. The board ultimately agreed with patent owner, and in doing so explained that the district court is the better forum to flesh out these “unusual” issues involving third-party discovery.

The board also determined that an initial review of the merits suggested that petitioner’s invalidity challenges were weak—weighing in favor of discretionary denial. Specifically, the board found that petitioner’s indefiniteness and written description challenges, which questioned the interpretation of the claim term “the rupture disc is . . . configured to rupture when exposed to a rupturing force greater than the rupture burst pressure,” were belied by the district court’s entry of a construction for that term. The board also held that petitioner’s obviousness challenges were flawed because they failed to map the prior art to a claim limitation and did not provide sufficient reasoning to combine the asserted references.

The board ultimately determined that, as a whole, the Fintiv factors suggested that inefficient duplication of efforts was likely and warranted denial of institution.

Practice Tip: When bringing an IPR or PGR, a petitioner should consider whether any of its invalidity challenges raise issues that could require excessive or unique types of discovery, including discovery from a third party or foreign entity. A petitioner should be aware that including such challenges makes the petition more susceptible to discretionary denial.

TCO AS v. NCS Multistage Inc., PGR2020-00077, Paper 16 (PTAB Feb. 18, 2021) (Cocks, Browne, Worth)

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.