Not a Patent or a 'Printed Publication'? Not a Problem—IPR Prior Art Not Limited to § 102(a)

August 8, 2023

Reading Time : 2 min

In a Final Written Decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has held that prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) was available in an inter partes review proceeding. The patent at issue was directed to alternating current driven LEDs, LED circuits and AC drive circuits and methods. The Petitioner challenged the claims under § 103(a), relying on a prior art reference (“Martin”) in seven of the nine grounds. Martin described LEDs formed on a single substrate connected in series for use with an AC source.

The Patent Owner argued that Martin was unavailable as prior art because it was neither a patent nor a printed publication as of the priority date of the challenged patent. The Patent Owner further argued that the Petitioner had cited no authority for invoking Martin’s filing date as its effective prior art date under § 102(e). According to the Petitioner, the reference qualified as prior art—despite publishing after the priority date—because it was a patent application filed in the United States before the challenged patent’s priority date. The Board agreed with Petitioner.

First, the Board contrasted the statute governing the formerly available covered business method proceeding with the statute governing IPRs. In CBM proceedings, the statute explicitly limited challenges to those based on prior art under § 102(a). But the language of the statute governing IPRs, § 311(b), imposes no such limitation.

Next, the Board noted that none of the cases the parties cited squarely addressed the issue. Still, the Federal Circuit has applied § 102(e) prior art in an appeal from an IPR. And the Board has also instituted trials and found claims unpatentable based on § 102(e) prior art. Because the Martin reference was filed in the United States before the challenged patent’s filing date, the Board found that Martin was available as a prior art reference in this IPR proceeding. As such, the Board found all the challenged claims unpatentable under § 103(a) in view of Martin and other prior art references.

Practice Tip: The AIA permits the use of § 102(e) prior art in IPR proceedings. Because the Board may institute trial on grounds that rely on § 102(e) prior art, Patent Owners are well advised to scrutinize substantively the suitability of such references when attempting to defeat IPR institution or an unpatentability finding in a final written decision.

Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc., No. IPR2022-00149, Paper 33 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2023)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

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

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

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.