PTAB Precedential Ruling: Expert Declaration Devoid of Supporting Evidence Dooms IPR Petition

March 24, 2023

Reading Time : 2 min

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently rejected an inter partes review petition that relied on a conclusory and unsupported expert declaration. The expert’s written testimony, which repeated portions of the petition verbatim, did not provide the necessary evidence to support the conclusion that one of skill would have understood the prior art as either teaching a limitation or rendering obvious the claims at issue.

A petitioner challenged all claims of a patent directed to a mobile ticketing system for detecting fraudulent activity. That patent’s sole independent claim included a limitation that required associating certain data with a user’s account if fraudulent activity was identified. A prior art reference disclosed a system where a user was blocked from further activity if fraudulent activity was identified. According to the Petitioner, one of skill in the art would have (1) understood that the limitation was necessarily taught by the prior art reference, or (2) found it obvious in light of that reference. The Patent Owner argued that there were ways to block a user other than by associating data with the user’s account and that Petitioner relied only on conclusory statements about the knowledge of one of skill in the art to supply a limitation not taught by the reference.

The Board agreed with the Patent Owner and concluded that both of Petitioner’s arguments were conclusory because they failed to explain why the limitation was necessarily present or why it would have been obvious in light of the reference’s disclosure. Petitioner’s only evidence related to that limitation was the opinion of its declarant. But Petitioner’s declarant did not offer any support for his conclusions, nor cite any additional evidence. He simply repeated verbatim the conclusory statements found in the petition. The Board reiterated that unsupported expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which it is based is entitled to little weight. That was the case here and the Board concluded that Petitioner had failed to meet its burden and declined to institute review.

Practice Note: When relying on an expert to support an argument of unpatentability in an IPR proceeding, a petitioner must ensure that the expert fully explains his or her opinion and provides the necessary supporting facts. Conversely, patent owners should scrutinize an adversary’s expert declaration and ensure that the expert has properly supported and explained his or her opinions.

Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper No. 9 (Aug 24, 2022) (designated precedential Feb. 10, 2023)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

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

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

© 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.