PTAB Precedential Opinion Panel: Wired Funds Are Paid When Fedwire Transfer Is Complete

Jan 31, 2022

Reading Time : 2 min

On December 16, 2020, one day shy of the one-year statutory bar, the petitioner filed a petition for IPR and initiated a wire payment of the required filing fee to Treasury NYC, the USPTO’s designated bank, using the Federal Reserve Fedwire System. Although the petitioner received immediate confirmation from its bank that the wire transfer was completed, the USPTO informed the petitioner that it had not received the filing fee on either that day or the following. The PTAB’s internal records reflect that the payment was received on December 18, 2020, and the petition was accorded a filing date of the next business day, December 21, 2020. Accordingly, the petition was time-barred, having been filed more than one year after the patent owner served the petitioner with a district court complaint alleging infringement of the challenged patent.  

The petitioner filed a motion to correct filing date, and a majority of the three-judge panel of the PTAB denied the motion and denied institution of IPR. The lone dissenting judge observed that the PTAB’s decision penalized the petitioner for the government’s delay in transferring payment. 

The petitioner requested rehearing and review by the POP. The POP granted review on the issue of whether Fedwire confirmation of payment constitutes sufficient evidence of payment under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.103(a), which require that a filing fee “accompany” a petition for IPR.

The POP vacated the majority’s denial of the motion to correct filing date, stating that by December 16, 2020, the petitioner had complied with the USPTO’s published instructions for sending a wire payment through Fedwire. The POP observed that federal regulations repeatedly confirm that payment to a beneficiary coincides with receipt and acceptance of the full amount of payment by the beneficiary’s bank. Accordingly, the POP concluded that the filing fee was paid when Treasury NYC received the full amount of the order, and the fee “accompanied” the IPR petition as required by 35 U.S.C. § 312(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.103(a). The POP therefore accorded the petition a filing date of December 16, 2020 and vacated the PTAB’s decision denying institution of the IPR as time-barred.

Nonetheless, the POP denied the timely-filed petition because the Federal Circuit in a parallel proceeding had recently affirmed that all challenged claims in the asserted patent were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The POP considered it highly unlikely that the Federal Circuit’s judgment would be overturned and thus declined to dedicate PTAB resources to assessing additional grounds of unpatentability. 

Practice Tip: Among the various forms of payment accepted by the USPTO, wire transfer via Fedwire payment is deemed successful by the PTAB upon Fedwire payment confirmation. Therefore, when planning wire payments for post-grant review proceedings, practitioners using Fedwire payment can rely on the Fedwire system’s confirmation as the USPTO’s formal acceptance of those funds.  

Toshiba Am. Elec. Components, Inc. v. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC, IPR2021-00330, Paper 19 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2022).

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.