PTAB Holds Patent Eligible for Post-Grant Review After Petitioner Successfully Demonstrates that Patent Is Not Entitled to Earliest Claimed Priority Date

Sep 12, 2016

Reading Time : 2 min

Under the America Invents Act, PGR is available only for patents that have “at least one claim with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, with ‘effective filing date’ having the definition given to it by 35 U.S.C. § 100(i).” If the effective filing date is prior to March 16, 2013, then the patent is ineligible for PGR. According to 35 U.S.C. § 100(i), the effective filing date is the filing date of the earliest application for which the patented invention is entitled. In instances when a patent is not entitled to any earlier filing date or right of priority, the effective filing date is the filing date of the patent itself. Id. 35 U.S.C. § 100(i).

The parties here disputed the effective filing date of the ’017 patent. The patent owner argued that the ’017 patent was entitled to the benefit of a series of earlier applications, the earliest of which was filed on October 25, 2002. Conversely, petitioner argued that the ’017 patent was not entitled to such benefit and that the effective filing date was March 24, 2014 (i.e., the filing date of the ’017 patent itself). The PTAB agreed with petitioner. Specifically, the PTAB found that all challenged claims require: (1) a heat transfer composition with a low toxicity refrigerant that essentially consists of 2,3,3,3-tetrafluorpropene (HFO-1234yf); (2) a lubricant that consists essentially of polyalkylene glycol(s) (PAG); and (3) a specific heat transfer application—automobile air conditioning. In reaching its determination, the PTAB noted that the earlier filed applications disclosed “blazemarks” to the general use of tetrafluorpropene and PAG lubricants and a “single passing reference” to automobile air conditioning.  However, that was insufficient.  Instead, the PTAB concluded that the earlier filed applications did “not enable the subject matter recited in [the challenged claims]” and failed to “provide sufficient guidance to demonstrate possession of the claimed subject matter as a whole, i.e., the combination of HFO-1234yf and [PAG] lubricant for automobile air conditioning.” Accordingly, the PTAB held that the ’017 patent had an effective filing date of March 26, 2014 and was thus eligible for PGR.

In the event that the ’017 patent was deemed ineligible for PGR, petitioner had also filed an inter partes review petition concurrent with its PGR petition. In view of the above determination, petitioner’s inter partes review petition was denied.

Arkema Inc., et al. v. Honeywell Intl. Inc., Case Nos. PGR2016-00011, Paper No. 13, PGR2016-00012, Paper No. 13, and IPR2016-00643, Paper No. 11 (PTAB, Sep. 2, 2016).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

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

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 1, 2025

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry applied when evaluating the claims of a patent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.

...

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.