Inter Partes Review (IPR) was introduced by the America Invents Act (AIA) as a counterpart to post-grant review. Together, they replace inter partes reexamination with inter partes review, becoming available only after the period for post-grant review has passed.
Inter partes review is a new trial proceeding conducted at the US Patent Trials and Appeals Board to review the patentability of one or more claims in a patent only on a ground that could be raised under 102 or 103, and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. Inter partes review process begins with a third party (a person who is not the owner of the patent) filing a petition after the later of either: (1) 9 months after the grant of the patent or issuance of a reissue patent; or (2) if a post grant review is instituted, the termination of the post grant review. The patent owner may file a preliminary response to the petition. An inter partes review may be instituted upon a showing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged. If the proceeding is instituted and not dismissed, a final determination by the Board will be issued within 1 year (extendable for good cause by 6 months). The procedure for conducting inter partes review will take effect on September 16, 2012, and applies to any patent issued before, on, or after September 16, 2012.
The Rapacke Law Group has years of experience helping clients petition the United States Patent Trials and Appeals Board for IPR proceedings on issued patents.
Post Grant Review Process
Post grant review is a new trial proceeding conducted at the Board to review the patentability of one or more claims in a patent on any ground that could be raised under § 282(b)(2) or (3). Post grant review process begins with a third party filing a petition on or prior to the date that is 9 months after the grant of the patent or issuance of a reissue patent. The patent owner may file a preliminary response to the petition. A post grant review may be instituted upon a showing that, it is more likely than not that at least one claim challenged is unpatentable. If the proceeding is instituted and not dismissed, a final determination by the Board will be issued within 1 year (extendable for good cause by 6 months). The procedure for conducting post grant review will take effect on September 16, 2012, and generally applies to patents issuing from applications subject to first-inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA.
Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents
The transitional program for covered business method patents (TPCBM) is a new trial proceeding conducted at the Board to review the patentability of one or more claims in a covered business method patent. TPCBM proceedings employ the standards and procedures of a post grant review, with certain exceptions. For example, for first to invent patents only a subset of prior art is available to support the petition. Further, a person may not file a petition for a TPCBM proceeding unless the person or the person’s real party in interest or privy has been sued for infringement of the patent or charged with infringement under the patent. The procedure for conducting TPCBM review will take effect on September 16, 2012, but only applies to covered business method patents. The program will sunset for new TPCBM petitions on September 16, 2020.
Derivation Proceeding
A derivation proceeding is a new trial proceeding conducted at the Board to determine whether (i) an inventor named in an earlier application derived the claimed invention from an inventor named in the petitioner’s application, and (ii) the earlier application claiming such invention was filed without authorization. An applicant subject to the first-inventor-to-file provisions may file a petition to institute a derivation proceeding only within 1 year of the first publication of a claim to an invention that is the same or substantially the same as the earlier application’s claim to the invention. The petition must be supported by substantial evidence that the claimed invention was derived from an inventor named in the petitioner’s application.
