Voluminous Expert Testimony and Exhibits Insufficient on Their Own to Warrant Denial of IPR Institution

January 15, 2025

Reading Time : 2 min

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted institution of inter partes review of a patent directed to delivery of targeted television advertisements. The board rejected patent owner’s argument that a lack of particularity as to the asserted grounds justified denial under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a), holding that “simply including a significant amount of testimony and a number of supporting references is not, by itself, a reason to find that the particularity requirement is not met.”

Petitioner filed four IPR petitions against the challenged patent along with testimony from two expert witnesses asserting that the claims were obvious. Petitioner argued that the four petitions were necessary to address all 152 claims of the challenged patent, with two petitions addressing the primary prior art reference Baig, and the other two petitions addressing the primary reference Madhavan. In its preliminary response, patent owner argued that the board should deny institution because petitioner had failed to justify why all four petitions were necessary, and because petitioner failed to meet the particularity requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3).

Patent owner, relying on the board’s informative decision in Adaptics, argued that the petition failed to meet the particularity requirement due to the “extensive alternative grounds” that were set forth, including 11 separate grounds expressly identified in the petition, and multiple “shadow grounds” that patent owner claimed petitioner added through expert testimony that incorporated additional references. The board, however, distinguished the petition in Adaptics from the current case, stating that while the Adaptics petition “involved potentially hundreds of distinct grounds challenging each claim” due to the inclusion of catch-all language “and/or,” the petition here had “at most, two grounds for each claim.”

The board also declined to find that the alleged “shadow grounds” made the petition lack particularity. The board held that while patent owner noted the large volume of expert testimony and exhibits, patent owner did not give any specific examples of their alleged impropriety. Although the board declined to make any judgment on the propriety of the expert testimony or exhibits in its institution decision, it stated that patent owner was free to challenge their admissibility during trial, as well as challenge any specific arguments that went beyond the express grounds laid out in the petition.

Practice Tip: When arguing that a petition fails to meet the particularity requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), patent owners should not rely simply on the number of asserted grounds, or the volume of exhibits or expert testimony submitted with the petition. Rather, a patent owner must point to specific examples of language or improper use of expert testimony and exhibits that would cause a multiplicity of grounds. These specific examples are more likely to convince the board that a petition lacks particularity and should be denied.

Freewheel Media, Inc. v. Intent IQ, LLC, IPR2024-00422, October 2, 2024.

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.