Sandip H. Patel, Partner

PTABWatch Blog

PTABWatch, provided by Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, analyzes and reports recent developments concerning Post-Grant Proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), including Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR), and Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings.

Recent Blog Posts

• The Futility in Appealing PTAB Institution Decisions Last month, in Federal Express Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., Appeal No. 2024‑1236 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 2026), the Federal Circuit again addressed the reach of the statutory bar on its review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions to institute inter partes reviews. The case arose from Qualcomm’s IPR petition challenging a FedEx patent that FedEx was already asserting against a third party in district court. Qualcomm was not involved in that court case, and its petition did not name... More
• The Propriety and Cost of Discretionary Denial In 2020, Apple and several other parties collectively sued the Patent Office in a U.S. district court in California. They alleged that guidance* the Director gave the Patent Trial and Appeal Board—on how, while parallel patent litigation was pending, to exercise the Director’s discretion to deny inter partes review petitions—violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), particularly 5 U.S.C. § 706 (link). Apple Inc. v. Vidal, No. 20-CV-06128 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2024). Apple complained that the guidance led to too... More
• The Power of Prophetic Disclosures Last summer, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that claims in a pair of patents owned by Agilent Technologies claiming chemically modified CRISPR guide RNAs are unpatentable. Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Synthego Corp., 139 F.4th 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2025). The court agreed that an earlier published international patent application filed by Pioneer Hi‑Bred sufficiently described these guide RNAs and enabled at least one embodiment within the scope of the challenged claims. The decision highlights the... More
• The High Hurdles in Disqualifying Prior Art The Federal Circuit’s decision last fall in Merck Serono S.A. v. Hopewell Pharma Ventures, Inc., Appeals 2025‑1210, ‑1211 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2025), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Jan. 22, 2026) (link), offers important guidance on the meaning of disclosures “by another” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e)—a word-pairing that often determines whether a reference qualifies as prior art during prosecution and in litigation (including in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings).* The court’s opinion not only affirmed the... More
• PTAB’s Delay in Instituting IPRs Is Not Reviewable on Appeal Practitioners before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board are well-acquainted with the statutory bar on judicial review of institution decisions. But what happens when the Board defers—for more than a year—a decision to rehear its non-institution decision, waiting for the Federal Circuit to clarify claim construction in parallel litigation involving the same patent and same parties? In Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC v. Ford Motor Company, Appeal 2024-1381 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2025) (“EBS”), the Federal Circuit addressed this scenario, providing a... More
• Federal Circuit Holds Recoverability of Attorney’s Fees Does Not Extend to AIA Trials Can a defendant who prevails in an exceptional patent infringement suit by invalidating the patent in inter partes review (IPR) recover its associated Patent Office-related attorney’s fees? A split three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit recently said no in Dragon Intellectual Property LLC v. Dish Networks LLC, Appeal Nos. 2022-1621, -1777, Slip Op. at 8 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2024) (“Dragon V”). This blogsite previously discussed (link) several instances where courts, including the Federal Circuit, have authorized this recovery when... More
• Federal Circuit Imperils Term-adjusted Patents The Federal Circuit recently upheld the Patent Office’s decision to reject claims in four separate reexamination cases due to obviousness-type double patenting (ODP). In re Cellect, LLC, Appeal Nos. 22-1293, -1294, -1295, -1296 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023). This decision is important because it expands ODP, a doctrine judges developed long ago, when patents received a term of 17 years from the date of issue, rather than 20 years from the date of filing. Unless overturned, this decision will significantly... More
• PTAB Updates and Expands the Director Review Process and Offers Transparency in Ex Parte Appeals After the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the Patent Office implemented an interim process for the Director to review Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions in AIA trials. The Office sought public feedback on the process last year (link) and received more than 4,000 responses (link)! The process has yet to be formalized via traditional notice and comment rulemaking, though someday, perhaps, it will. Until then, the Patent Office continues to offer new updates and information,... More
• Patent Interferences May Not Involve Pure AIA Patent The Patent Office is not supposed to issue separate patents for the same invention to competing inventors. Several statutory provisions empower the Office to reject pre-AIA patent application claims of the later inventor. But sometimes it’s not clear who is the later inventor. Those provisions are therefore unhelpful. So, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board administers an increasingly rare proceeding called an “interference” to assesses which inventor was the last to invent. Through this proceeding, the Office cancels as unpatentable... More
• Patent Office Proposes Increasing AIA Trial Fees The Patent Office’s Director recently notified the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) of the Office’s intent to set or adjust several fees that patent applicants, patent owners, and those challenging patents in AIA trials must pay. For applicants, this includes fee increases for filing applications and tiered fees for filing terminal disclaimers. This also includes tiered fees for filing continuation applications more than three or seven years after the earliest claimed benefit application was filed. Part of those fees are... More