PTAB: Dynamic Drinkware Written Description Requirement Inapplicable to Post-AIA Patents

January 30, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

The Federal Circuit held in Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) that for a pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) prior-art reference to be entitled to a provisional application’s priority date, the provisional application must: (1) describe the subject matter relied upon as prior art, and (2) provide written description support for at least one claim in the prior art reference. In a recent precedential decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board declined to apply the Dynamic Drinkware written description requirement to prior art references under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(d). 

In an inter partes review of a patent with a priority date of July 18, 2019, petitioner asserted as prior art a reference claiming priority to a provisional application. Patent owner argued that the reference patent was not entitled to the earlier priority date because the provisional application to which it claimed priority was not shown to provide written description support for at least one claim; as such, patent owner argued that reference failed to qualify as such under Dynamic Drinkware. Petitioner countered that this requirement is limited to pre-AIA patents.

Based on statutory language and USPTO guidance, the board agreed with petitioner holding that, under the AIA, a prior art patent claiming priority to an earlier application need only meet the ministerial requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 119 and 120, and, under the current statutory text of 35 U.S.C. § 102(d), the earlier application must simply describe the subject matter relied upon in the reference patent document as prior art. The board, citing MPEP § 2154.01(b), reasoned that AIA § 102 merely requires that a reference patent be entitled to claim a right of priority and need not be actually entitled to priority under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 100(i)(1)(B). The board also relied on a 2018 USPTO Memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps stating that the pre-AIA written description requirement is not applicable to the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA for prior art determinations. Consequently, according to the board, under AIA §§ 102(a)(2) and 102(d), there is no need to evaluate whether a provisional application’s written description actually entitles any patent claims to priority.

Practice Tip: Under current PTAB practice, a petitioner asserting an AIA reference claiming priority to an earlier-filed application need only meet the three ministerial requirements of (1) claiming priority to a (2) co-pending prior filed application that (3) shares a common inventor or is filed by the same applicant, as well as making a showing that the earlier application describes the subject matter relied upon as prior art. Parties should, however, exercise caution outside the confines of the PTAB in assessing AIA requirements under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(2) and 102(d) until the Federal Circuit rules on the issue.

Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc., IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (March 10, 2023). 

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

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

© 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.