PTAB: Merely Showing That a Reference Was Available on the Internet Does Not Establish ‘Public Accessibility’

January 29, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of a petition for IPR after determining that the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that its primary asserted reference, which was available through the Internet Archive, qualified as a prior art printed publication that was publicly accessible before the critical date. In particular, the board found that the petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence that an interested party exercising reasonable diligence would have located the archived reference.

The challenged patent relates to a free-standing solar tracker that rotates a solar panel assembly to track the movement of the sun during the day. The petitioner challenged two claims as anticipated and obvious over an installation guide for a solar tracker. In addressing the prior art status of the asserted installation guide, the petitioner stated that the reference was publicly accessible because it was available on a webpage prior to the critical date of the patent, as verified by the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. As further support that the reference constituted prior art, the petitioner also submitted an affidavit from a record processor at the Internet Archive who explained that the Wayback Machine allows users to browse more than 450 billion archived webpages by searching their URLs. The affidavit attached screenshots of the webpage that contained the asserted installation guide.

The patent owner in its response argued that the petitioner failed to meet its burden in establishing that the reference is prior art. According to the patent owner, the petitioner did not show that the website containing the reference was indexed in a manner that would allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to locate it. Thus, in the patent owner’s view, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the reference was publicly accessible such that it could have been located with reasonable diligence by those interested or ordinarily skilled in the subject matter.

The board ultimately agreed with the patent owner and found that the petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence or argument to demonstrate that the asserted reference was publicly accessible. In doing so, the board first distinguished the petitioner’s reference from an online publication that would have been well known to the community interested in the subject matter. Here, the petitioner provided no evidence that a person interested in solar panel assemblies would have been independently aware of the web address or even the company name for the asserted installation guide. Next, the board noted there was an absence of evidence demonstrating that the website at which the reference was located was indexed and thereby locatable by an Internet search engine. Because the petitioner’s affidavit only indicated that the Wayback Machine is searchable by URL, without explaining how a query of a search engine using a combination of words would have produced the web address containing the asserted reference, the petitioner failed to establish that the asserted reference would have been located by an interested party exercising reasonable diligence. Ultimately, the board held that the petitioner’s showing that the asserted installation guide was “technically accessible” on the Internet was insufficient to establish public accessibility.

Practice Tip: While relying on archived webpages is a common practice for establishing the prior art status of a reference, parties should take care not to conflate mere accessibility with the legal requirements for showing “public accessibility.” Even where a party can demonstrate that an asserted reference was available on the internet prior to the critical date of a patent, the party must also demonstrate that the reference was either actually disseminated or locatable with reasonable diligence by an interested party to qualify as prior art.

First Solar, Inc. v. Rovshan Sade, IPR2023-00827, Paper 13 (PTAB Nov. 16, 2023).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

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

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

© 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.