PublishedMay 14, 2015

Three Crucial Words in Patent Reform: Inter Partes Review (Part 1)

Note: This is Part 1 in a three-part series. If you’re already comfortable with how inter partes review works, you may want to skip to Part 2.

If you watched the Senate hearing last week, you heard a lot of talk about [define term=”inter partes review”].

Inter partes review (IPR) is an incredibly useful procedure created by the America Invents Act (AIA), and opponents of patent litigation reform are trying to gut it.

The Basics of Inter Partes Review

First, let’s start with what inter partes review actually is. After the USPTO grants a patent, there are a few ways to ask the USPTO to take another look: [define term=”ex parte reexamination”], inter partes review, [define term=”post grant review”], and [define term=”covered business method review”].

In each type of procedure, a third-party can ask the USPTO to determine whether a patent is invalid. The USPTO grants the petition (i.e., agrees to review the patent) based on how likely the challenge is to succeed.

Inter partes review is limited: the only grounds for filing a petition are that the patent was disclosed or suggested by an earlier patent or printed publication. There are also timing rules.

For patents filed pre-AIA (before March 17, 2013), inter partes review can be brought any time. For patents filed on or after March 17, 2013, the patent must be at least nine months old and any post grant reviews must be complete. (Post grant reviews must be filed within the first nine months after a patent issues.) And if the petitioner has been sued for infringing the patent, there’s a 1-year window in which to file the petition, which starts on the date the complaint was served.

Unlike reexamination, the AIA reviews (including inter partes review) are conducted by a panel of three Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) on the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), not patent examiners. APJs are all patent attorneys, and they’re all experienced practitioners.

The panel will grant a petition for inter partes review if it determines that there is a reasonable likelihood that the challenged patent is invalid. If the petition is granted, the panel will have a trial and make a determination of validity. Final panel decisions can be appealed to the Federal Circuit.

There is real risk for a petitioner. Once you file an inter partes review, you can no longer argue (in court or at the PTAB) that the patent is invalid on any grounds that you raised or reasonably could have raised. So losing at the PTAB basically means your invalidity arguments are done.

In Part 2, I’ll look at the complaints that some patent owners are making about IPRs.

Matt Levy

Previously, Matt was patent counsel at the Computer & Communications Industry Association

More Posts

New Case-Assignment Order Marks Next Step in Curbing Judge Shopping in Texas

Late last month, Chief U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Texas Alia Moses announced a new order to distribute patent cases randomly across the district, while raising the bar for plainti...

The U.S. Intellectual Property System and the Impact of Litigation Financed by Third-Party Investors and Foreign Entities

On Wednesday, June 12th, Paul Taylor, a Visiting Fellow at the National Security Institute at George Mason University – and previous Patent Progress contributor – testified in front of the House J...

States Join Together to Defend Against NPEs

In 2013, Vermont became the first state to pass an “anti-patent troll” law. Since then, more than 30 states have passed similar laws to rein in patent trolls. These efforts, which range from allow...

Subscribe to Patent Progress

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.