Follow-On Petitions Must Be Justified and Timely, PTAB Litigation Blog
Visit the PTAB Litigation Blog.
The PTAB recently held that the General Plastic factors weighed in favor of denying a follow-on IPR petition filed after the Patent Owner filed a preliminary response to an earlier petition challenging the same patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,690,330). See Metall Zug AG v. Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, IPR2020-01074, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 5, 2021). In the earlier proceeding, the PTAB denied the petitioner’s request to replace its filed petition with a 238 page “unabridged” petition because of the “unabridged” petition’s “extraordinary length.” Nearly four months after that denial, the petitioner filed four follow-on petitions challenging the claims of the ’330 Patent, including the petition in the IPR2020-01074 proceeding. The PTAB explained that “[s]tanding alone, the sheer number of petitions (five), taken together with Petitioner’s unexplained and significant delay in filing the four follow-on petitions supports an exercise of our discretionary denial powers.” IPR2020-01074, Paper 8 at 4. The PTAB then explained that its analysis of the seven General Plastic factors justified its discretionary denial of the follow-on petition, with emphasis on factors 1 and 3.
Jones Day publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the Firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our “Contact Us” form, which can be found on our website at www.jonesday.com. The mailing of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Firm.