PTAB Designates as Precedential a Decision on the PTAB’s Discretion to Deny Institution of an IPR Based on a Parallel District Court Proceeding

May 20, 2020

Reading Time : 4 min

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently designated an order, Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR 2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020), as precedential. The order outlines six non-dispositive factors the PTAB will consider when determining whether to exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review (IPR) based on parallel proceedings.

Patent owner Fintiv sued Apple, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125 (“the ’125 patent”). Apple filed a petition challenging claims of the ’125 patent and argued that, despite a parallel district court proceeding involving the same invalidity challenges, the PTAB should not exercise its authority to deny institution because no trial date had been set. Following the filing of the petition, however, the district court entered a scheduling order that set a trial date before the projected deadline for a final written decision in the IPR.

Focusing on efficiency, fairness, and merits, the PTAB has laid out the factors it will consider when deciding whether to exercise its authority to deny institution in view of the parallel district court proceeding and requested the parties to submit further briefing.

The Factors to be Assessed by the PTAB:

1. Whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted

A district court stay of the parallel proceeding can weigh strongly against denying institution because it allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts. Evidence that a stay may be granted includes a denial of stay without prejudice with leave to file a renewed motion if the PTAB trial is instituted. Conversely, a denial of a stay with no indication that the court will consider a renewed motion can weigh in favor of denying institution. When there is a parallel International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation, the PTAB instructs parties to indicate whether there is also a stayed parallel district court case and whether the patentability disputes before the ITC will resolve substantially all of the patentability disputes between the parties.

2. Proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision

A district court trial date that is before the PTAB’s statutory deadline for the final written decision weighs in favor of denying institution. A trial date at or around the statutory deadline, or even significantly later, will likely implicate other factors, such as the resources that have been invested in the parallel proceeding.

3. Investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties 

The PTAB also considers the amount and type of work already completed in the parallel proceeding, by both the court and the parties. Substantive orders concerning the patent-at-issue, such as a claim construction order, may favor denial. The lack of orders related to the patent weighs against denial of institution.

The PTAB instructs parties to explain facts relevant to timing of the petition’s filing. If the petitioner files its petition promptly after learning which claims are asserted in the parallel proceeding, this weighs against denying institution. On the other hand, if the petitioner did not file expeditiously, or cannot explain a delay in filing, these facts can favor denial.

4. Overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding

 Concerns of inefficiency and possible conflicting decisions are particularly strong where the petition presents substantially identical arguments that were at issue in the district court. Thus, this fact favors denial. Conversely, a petition presenting materially different arguments or evidence than those provided in the district court tends to weigh against denial. Weighing the degree of similarity is fact dependent. The PTAB instructs parties to indicate whether all or some of the claims challenged in the petition are also at issue in the district court. Non-overlapping claim challenges in the petition will weigh for or against denial of institution, depending on their similarity to the claims at issue in district court.

5. Whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party

If a petitioner is unrelated to a defendant in an earlier proceeding, this fact weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution. However, even if the petitioner is unrelated, the PTAB instructs petitioners to discuss other proceedings involving the challenged patent and explain why addressing the same or substantially the same issues would not be duplicative of the earlier proceeding.

6. Other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits

The PTAB considers all relevant circumstances in deciding whether to exercise its discretion to deny institution. Accordingly, in addition to the five factors above, other circumstances, such as the merit of the grounds raised in the petition, will also be evaluated.

Practice Tip: Assessing these six factors should be part of strategic considerations by the parties litigating before the PTAB where there is an ongoing parallel district court litigation. Timing can be critical, and petitioners should file their petitions as early as possible, highlighting any differences between the issues in the district court proceeding and those in the petition. Patent owners in parallel proceedings should address these factors when seeking a discretionary denial of institution in their preliminary response.

Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020) (Precedential)

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.