Protective Order Forecloses Participation of Litigation Counsel in Motion to Amend Process Before the PTAB

May 17, 2024

Reading Time : 3 min

In keeping with precedent, a judge in the District of Delaware issued an oral order restricting the extent of permissible activities for litigation counsel before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The order resolved a protective order dispute over the proper scope of a patent prosecution bar, concluding that litigation counsel that had access to confidential information is restricted from participating in the motion to amend process in an IPR.

Plaintiffs brought an action in the District of Delaware alleging that defendants infringed several patents. Defendants responded by filing IPR petitions at the PTAB challenging the patentability of each asserted patent. Before discovery commenced in the district court litigation, the parties met-and-conferred on a protective order. During those negotiations, a dispute arose over the scope of a proposed prosecution bar. While both parties agreed that litigation counsel that had access to defendants’ confidential information could participate generally in the IPRs, they disagreed over counsels’ involvement in the IPR motion to amend process. Plaintiffs’ proposed protective order language made clear that arguing the patentability of claims presented in a motion to amend should not be barred. Defendants’ proposed language, on the other hand, prevented litigation counsel from participating in any way in a motion to amend, including drafting a motion to amend and arguing the patentability of the amended claims.

In advocating for their proposed protective order language, plaintiffs pointed out that claims in an IPR can only be narrowed. Therefore, arguing the patentability of amended claims presents no more risk of inadvertent disclosure of confidential information than arguing the patentability of original claims, which defendants’ proposal would permit. Plaintiffs further contended that defendants’ proposed language banning litigation counsel from participating in motions to amend would severely prejudice plaintiffs by depriving them of their choice of counsel, resulting in duplication of efforts and increased costs.

Defendants disagreed and argued that allowing litigation counsel with access to defendants’ confidential information to participate in the motion to amend process would subject even the most scrupulous counsel to the risk of influencing the scope of proposed amended claims with that confidential information in mind. That risk, defendants claimed, is further exacerbated by the fact that (during the motion to amend process) the patent owner can change the scope of the claims after receiving preliminary guidance from the board. According to defendants, in arguing a motion to amend, the patent owner may advance arguments that affect the claims’ scope, including via claim construction or disclaimer. Because patent owners can potentially obtain new claims with different scope, in defendants’ view, a bright-line rule prohibiting litigation counsel that received confidential information from participating in motions to amend is necessary. Finally, defendants argued that plaintiffs would suffer no prejudice by the ban because they could select counsel from the same law firm as litigation counsel to argue motions to amend.

Ultimately, the court adopted defendants’ language and in doing so noted that it is consistent with the “balanced approach” taken previously in the District of Delaware that allowed litigation counsel to participate in IPRs except as to activities related to amending claims. The court further explained that although claims can only be narrowed in an IPR, there is still a risk that the patent owner could use confidential information to craft claims that avoid prior art but still cover defendants’ product. Moreover, the court emphasized that plaintiffs failed to explain how their litigation counsel could draft or argue a motion to amend without discussing the claim amendments with the patent prosecutors. The court concluded that allowing even limited involvement in the motion to amend process “could defeat the purpose of implementing the prosecution bar in the first place.”

Practice Tip: In negotiating the terms of a protective order, parties should be intimately familiar with precedent in the jurisdiction in question. If appropriate, defendants should consider seeking to include language that unambiguously restricts plaintiff’s litigation counsel that had access to defendant’s confidential information from working on motions to amend in any co-pending IPR. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, should consider shielding at least one attorney on their team from defendant’s confidential information to ensure that the attorney can participate in a motion to amend in the IPR, including by drafting and arguing the motion to amend.

Aerin Med. Inc., et al. v. Neurent Med. Inc., et al., Case No. 1-23-cv-00756, D.I. 66 (D. Del. May 8, 2024) (Fallon, J.).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

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

© 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.