PTAB: Digital Repository’s Listed Publication Date Insufficient to Show Reference’s Public Availability

January 2, 2024

Reading Time : 3 min

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review after determining that petitioner failed to establish public availability of a prior art reference based on an alleged publication date listed in several digital repositories. The board also held that evidence in the form of a linked webpage is entitled to no weight.

The challenged patent related to systems and methods of detecting, controlling and removing pestware, which is any computer program that collects information about a person or an organization. Petitioner asserted several grounds of unpatentability, all of which relied on a reference authored by Li. In response, patent owner argued that petitioner had failed to show that the Li reference was publicly available as of the asserted priority date. To establish public availability, petitioner relied on a declaration from a university professor who did not claim to have personal knowledge of when the Li reference was published.  Instead, the professor testified that the Li reference was presented at a conference and was also published in three digital repositories, all of which indicated a publication date of January 2004. As further evidence of public accessibility, the professor stated that more than 30 publications in Google Scholar had cited the Li reference.

Ultimately, the board sided with patent owner. As a threshold matter, the board noted that the professor’s declaration cited several webpage links, instead of exhibits as required by the rules. Despite being given an opportunity to correct this error by filing late copies of the webpage links as exhibits, petitioner did not do so. The board refused to consider the hyperlinked webpages as evidence and in doing so emphasized that exhibits must be filed because, unlike a webpage link, exhibits are not subject to change or removal and provide public access to the record of the case. As such, the board determined that the professor’s declaration was unsupported because it relied on links instead of exhibits. In addition, the board accorded the declaration little or no weight and held that petitioner failed to establish public availability of the Li reference.

The board found that even if it were to consider the substance of the webpage links, petitioner still failed to show that the Li reference was publicly available before the priority date of the challenged patent. In this regard, the board noted that the Li reference is undated and has no indication within its four corners evidencing a timeframe in which it might have been published. Petitioner also submitted no evidence that the Li reference was disseminated at a conference or otherwise made available such that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter could locate it with reasonable diligence. Petitioner’s assertion that the Li reference “is” available from digital repositories does not show that it was publicly accessible in the relevant timeframe—i.e., 17 years earlier. The board found the reliance on the purported publication dates in the digital repositories unpersuasive. For one thing, one of the repositories, ResearchGate, was not established until after the patent’s priority date.  Google Scholar, another digital repository, listed the Li reference only through a link to ResearchGate. Moreover, the Li reference’s citation to papers dated after January 2004 called into question the January 2004 purported publication date in the ResearchGate and Google Scholar repositories. Given the lack of evidentiary support, the board agreed with patent owner that petitioner merely relied on speculation that the Li reference was publicly accessible in the relevant timeframe and accordingly declined to institute the IPR.

Practice Tip: Parties in IPR proceedings should heed the rules for submitting evidence to the board and should avoid citations to webpages in lieu of exhibits. Parties are also well advised to avoid relying on merely the publication date listed in a digital repository, without more, when attempting to establish a reference’s date of public availability.

Sophos Ltd. v. Open Text Inc., IPR2023-00732, Paper 23 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 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.