SlideShare a Scribd company logo
Hon. Linda Horner
Administrative Patent Judge, Patent
Trial & Appeal Board
A New Settlement Paradigm at
PTAB:
Using ADR to Settle
Post-Grant Proceedings
David L. Newman
dnewman@gouldratner.com
May 19, 2016
©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved
 The USPTO has announced that it will
encourage participants in post-grant
proceedings at PTAB to use ADR
procedures such as:
• mediation
• arbitration
• hybrid: mediation and arbitration/ early neutral
evaluation (ENE)
ADR at PTAB
1
 Announcement came following input from
the ADR committee of the ABA’s IP
Section.
 Retain attorney especially qualified to
guide parties with respect to PTAB
proceedings and use of mediation,
arbitration and other ADR processes.
ADR at PTAB
©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 2
 Summer of 2015, multiple meetings with
judges at the PTAB in order to investigate
the use of ADR procedures at the PTAB.
 As a result, the USPTO determined that it
should encourage parties to attempt to
settle PTAB proceedings by use of
mediation, arbitration or other ADR
proceedings.
ADR at PTAB
©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 3
©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 4
 The USPTO has identified organizations that may assist
in providing alternative dispute resolution services,
including:
• CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution – roster of neutrals
• American Intellectual Property Law Association
• American Arbitration Association – provides neutrals,
administration
• World Intellectual Property Organization – provides neutrals,
administration
• American Bar Association
ADR at PTAB
©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 5
ADR at PTAB
 Other organizations that may assist in
providing ADR services, include:
• International Trade Commission (ITC) – roster
of neutrals
• JAMS – provide neutrals
• Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit –
roster of neutrals
©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 6
 PTAB disputes that may be settled using
ADR:
• Inter Partes Review (IPR)
• Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings
• Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings
ADR at PTAB
©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 7
PTAB Arbitration Rulings
 Amkor Tech, Inc. v. Tessera, Inc.,
IPR2013-00242, Paper 98 (Jan. 31, 2014)
 Addressing Patent Owner’s argument that
petition was not filed timely because, in a
prior arbitration proceeding, Patent Owner
served Petitioner with a counterclaim
alleging infringement more than one year
before the petition was filed
©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 8
PTAB Arbitration Rulings
 Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC, IPR2014-
00884, Paper 11 (Dec. 11, 2014) –
 Addressing Patent Owner’s argument that
Petitioner does not have standing to bring
petition to challenge patent because
challenge violates terms of an arbitration
agreement.
©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 9
PTAB Arbitration Rulings
 Shinzhen China Star Optoelectronics
Tech Co. v. AU Optronics Corp.,
IPR2016-00548, Paper 9 (May 2, 2016) –
 Order granting parties’ joint motion to
dismiss petitions pre-institution in
according with a partial final arbitration
award and maintaining the partial final
award under seal.
©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 10
 In many cases, customization of traditional
mediation and arbitration proceedings would
be beneficial
 For example, an ENE or expert determination
by S.M.E. to provide a preliminary opinion
regarding the validity of the patent in a first
phase of the proceeding
ADR at PTAB
©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 11
 Begin ADR following Institution Decision (IPR)
ADR at PTAB
©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 12
 Type of ADR to be
selected:
• Arbitration
• Mediation
• ENE/ Expert
Determination
 Include appeal process
ADR Considerations
©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 13
ADR Considerations - Types of
Cases/ Parties for ADR
 Non-competitors
 Unequal Resources
 Large Monetization Program
at Risk
 District Court Case is Stayed
 Uncertain Claim
Construction Ruling from
Institution Decision
©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 14
ADR Considerations
 Identify the scope of issues to be addressed by
the new ADR process to include:
• validity
• infringement
• inequitable conduct
• license terms
• ownership
• inventorship
• damages
• FRAND Rates
©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 15
ADR Timeline
 Set timing of the ADR proceeding so that it does
not disrupt an ongoing AIA trial timeline (e.g. parties
must complete an ADR proceeding within 45 days)
©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 16
ADR Timeline
1. Parties exchange a list of
topics, ADR neutrals,
potential dates that
attorney and principal can
attend ADR and preferred
location within 17 days of
institution decision.
©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 17
ADR Timeline
2. ADR coordinator will locate appropriate neutral
within 25 days of institution decision and notify
parties of date and location of ADR to occur
within 45 days of institution decision.
3. Parties will attend teleconference with neutral
to discuss ADR process, urgent issues and
send retainer fee to neutral within 35 days of
institution decision.
©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 18
ADR Timeline
©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved
4. Parties will submit ADR briefs outlining basic
positions on validity issues, preferred claim
constructions, settlement offer and issues to be
addressed to facilitate settlement within 40
days of institution decision.
5. Parties, including principals, attend ADR to be
held in person within 45 days of institution
decision.
19
ADR Considerations - Scope of
confidentiality restrictions for the ADR
 35 U.S.C § 294 (d) - Patentee shall file arbitration
award with USPTO Director. So parties should agree on
terms/issues not to be written in arbitration award (e.g.
non-patentable/ invalidity decision is verbally provided
and no written opinion on that issue).
 35 USC § 317(b) - A [settlement] agreement
shall be filed with PTAB and shall be treated as
business confidential info and be kept separate
from the files of the involved patent, unless good
cause is shown to disclose.
©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 20
ADR Considerations
 Confirm parties will
split ADR costs.
 Obtain schedule
and budget from
arbitrator/mediator
in advance of ADR
to complete within
45 days.
©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 21

More Related Content

PDF
Offsets in Defence Procurement in Canada - Considerations
PDF
Protecing Your Assets
PDF
What is a franchise
PDF
Positioning Your Start-Up For Success: Advice to Entrepreneurs Forming a Company
PPTX
Tutorial paint.net
PPTX
PLSAs, SEPs and PAEs: The Antitrust/IP Acronyms You Should Know and Understand
PDF
Discussion of the changes in the fourth revision to the Chinese patent law
Offsets in Defence Procurement in Canada - Considerations
Protecing Your Assets
What is a franchise
Positioning Your Start-Up For Success: Advice to Entrepreneurs Forming a Company
Tutorial paint.net
PLSAs, SEPs and PAEs: The Antitrust/IP Acronyms You Should Know and Understand
Discussion of the changes in the fourth revision to the Chinese patent law

Similar to How to Develop an ADR Program for PTAB (20)

PDF
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Post-Grant Patent Proceedings: Are th...
PDF
Inter-Partes Review of Patents: The Case So Far (CLE)
PDF
IPR in Business #04: International Patent Filing Reasons & Strategies
PDF
Latest Developments Regarding Arbitration in Hong Kong and Mainland China
PPTX
PDF
What are-the-different-patent-filing-options-invn tree
PDF
LA Lawyer
PPTX
Cross-Border Licensing Issues
PDF
Taking Advantage of the PCT: Strategies, Tips, and Best Practices
PDF
16 Good Reasons For Pursuing A Quick Patent Grant 100422.pdf
PDF
Global Antitrust Filings in M&A Transactions
PDF
IAM Yearbook 2016_Vringo
PPTX
Model license ageement
PDF
Final udrp webinar slidesv4
PDF
Hague — A New Consideration For US Design Applications
PDF
Intellectual Property Valuation Case study
PPTX
Model license ageement
PPT
business plan presentation about hisrich book
PDF
Conjoint survey paper
PPT
Bus law arbitration
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Post-Grant Patent Proceedings: Are th...
Inter-Partes Review of Patents: The Case So Far (CLE)
IPR in Business #04: International Patent Filing Reasons & Strategies
Latest Developments Regarding Arbitration in Hong Kong and Mainland China
What are-the-different-patent-filing-options-invn tree
LA Lawyer
Cross-Border Licensing Issues
Taking Advantage of the PCT: Strategies, Tips, and Best Practices
16 Good Reasons For Pursuing A Quick Patent Grant 100422.pdf
Global Antitrust Filings in M&A Transactions
IAM Yearbook 2016_Vringo
Model license ageement
Final udrp webinar slidesv4
Hague — A New Consideration For US Design Applications
Intellectual Property Valuation Case study
Model license ageement
business plan presentation about hisrich book
Conjoint survey paper
Bus law arbitration
Ad

Recently uploaded (20)

PPT
2025 KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY LECTURE.ppt
PDF
Black And Deep Peach Geometric Legal Advisor Firm Presentation.pdf
PPT
Role of trustees in EC Competition Law.ppt
PPTX
RA 11313 (Anti Bastos Law) by Romielyn Abecia.pptx
PDF
devolution-handbook (1).pdf the growh of devolution from 2010
PPTX
The-Specific-Relief-AmendmentAct2018.pptx
PDF
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Amendment Bill 2025
PPTX
Rights of the Accused Presentation CLEPI
PPTX
Philippine Politics and Governance - Lesson 10 - The Executive Branch
PDF
Legal Strategics for Startup Success Contracts.pdf
PDF
Brown and Beige Vintage Classic Illustration Paper Project History Presenta_2...
PPT
SDEAC-2020-Leaves-of-Absence-Presentation-Daniel-De-La-Cruz.ppt
PDF
CORPORATE GOOD GOVERNANCE_ CONTEMPORARY TRENDS AND CHALLENGES (1).pdf
PPTX
kabarak lecture 2.pptx on development of family law in kenya
PDF
WRIT Jurisdiction of Supreme court of Bangladesh
DOCX
CHAPTER 1 OBLICON.............................
PDF
AI in Modern Warfare and Business Ethics Ortynska Law Ventures Cafe.pdf
PDF
Avoiding Costly Pitfalls Critical Errors That Could Sabotage Your OFAC Compli...
PPTX
white collar crime .pptx power function and punishment
2025 KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY LECTURE.ppt
Black And Deep Peach Geometric Legal Advisor Firm Presentation.pdf
Role of trustees in EC Competition Law.ppt
RA 11313 (Anti Bastos Law) by Romielyn Abecia.pptx
devolution-handbook (1).pdf the growh of devolution from 2010
The-Specific-Relief-AmendmentAct2018.pptx
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Amendment Bill 2025
Rights of the Accused Presentation CLEPI
Philippine Politics and Governance - Lesson 10 - The Executive Branch
Legal Strategics for Startup Success Contracts.pdf
Brown and Beige Vintage Classic Illustration Paper Project History Presenta_2...
SDEAC-2020-Leaves-of-Absence-Presentation-Daniel-De-La-Cruz.ppt
CORPORATE GOOD GOVERNANCE_ CONTEMPORARY TRENDS AND CHALLENGES (1).pdf
kabarak lecture 2.pptx on development of family law in kenya
WRIT Jurisdiction of Supreme court of Bangladesh
CHAPTER 1 OBLICON.............................
AI in Modern Warfare and Business Ethics Ortynska Law Ventures Cafe.pdf
Avoiding Costly Pitfalls Critical Errors That Could Sabotage Your OFAC Compli...
white collar crime .pptx power function and punishment
Ad

How to Develop an ADR Program for PTAB

  • 1. Hon. Linda Horner Administrative Patent Judge, Patent Trial & Appeal Board A New Settlement Paradigm at PTAB: Using ADR to Settle Post-Grant Proceedings David L. Newman dnewman@gouldratner.com May 19, 2016
  • 2. ©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved  The USPTO has announced that it will encourage participants in post-grant proceedings at PTAB to use ADR procedures such as: • mediation • arbitration • hybrid: mediation and arbitration/ early neutral evaluation (ENE) ADR at PTAB 1
  • 3.  Announcement came following input from the ADR committee of the ABA’s IP Section.  Retain attorney especially qualified to guide parties with respect to PTAB proceedings and use of mediation, arbitration and other ADR processes. ADR at PTAB ©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 2
  • 4.  Summer of 2015, multiple meetings with judges at the PTAB in order to investigate the use of ADR procedures at the PTAB.  As a result, the USPTO determined that it should encourage parties to attempt to settle PTAB proceedings by use of mediation, arbitration or other ADR proceedings. ADR at PTAB ©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 3
  • 5. ©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 4
  • 6.  The USPTO has identified organizations that may assist in providing alternative dispute resolution services, including: • CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution – roster of neutrals • American Intellectual Property Law Association • American Arbitration Association – provides neutrals, administration • World Intellectual Property Organization – provides neutrals, administration • American Bar Association ADR at PTAB ©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 5
  • 7. ADR at PTAB  Other organizations that may assist in providing ADR services, include: • International Trade Commission (ITC) – roster of neutrals • JAMS – provide neutrals • Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit – roster of neutrals ©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 6
  • 8.  PTAB disputes that may be settled using ADR: • Inter Partes Review (IPR) • Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings • Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings ADR at PTAB ©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 7
  • 9. PTAB Arbitration Rulings  Amkor Tech, Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., IPR2013-00242, Paper 98 (Jan. 31, 2014)  Addressing Patent Owner’s argument that petition was not filed timely because, in a prior arbitration proceeding, Patent Owner served Petitioner with a counterclaim alleging infringement more than one year before the petition was filed ©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 8
  • 10. PTAB Arbitration Rulings  Ford Motor Company v. Paice LLC, IPR2014- 00884, Paper 11 (Dec. 11, 2014) –  Addressing Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner does not have standing to bring petition to challenge patent because challenge violates terms of an arbitration agreement. ©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 9
  • 11. PTAB Arbitration Rulings  Shinzhen China Star Optoelectronics Tech Co. v. AU Optronics Corp., IPR2016-00548, Paper 9 (May 2, 2016) –  Order granting parties’ joint motion to dismiss petitions pre-institution in according with a partial final arbitration award and maintaining the partial final award under seal. ©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 10
  • 12.  In many cases, customization of traditional mediation and arbitration proceedings would be beneficial  For example, an ENE or expert determination by S.M.E. to provide a preliminary opinion regarding the validity of the patent in a first phase of the proceeding ADR at PTAB ©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 11
  • 13.  Begin ADR following Institution Decision (IPR) ADR at PTAB ©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 12
  • 14.  Type of ADR to be selected: • Arbitration • Mediation • ENE/ Expert Determination  Include appeal process ADR Considerations ©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 13
  • 15. ADR Considerations - Types of Cases/ Parties for ADR  Non-competitors  Unequal Resources  Large Monetization Program at Risk  District Court Case is Stayed  Uncertain Claim Construction Ruling from Institution Decision ©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 14
  • 16. ADR Considerations  Identify the scope of issues to be addressed by the new ADR process to include: • validity • infringement • inequitable conduct • license terms • ownership • inventorship • damages • FRAND Rates ©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 15
  • 17. ADR Timeline  Set timing of the ADR proceeding so that it does not disrupt an ongoing AIA trial timeline (e.g. parties must complete an ADR proceeding within 45 days) ©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 16
  • 18. ADR Timeline 1. Parties exchange a list of topics, ADR neutrals, potential dates that attorney and principal can attend ADR and preferred location within 17 days of institution decision. ©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 17
  • 19. ADR Timeline 2. ADR coordinator will locate appropriate neutral within 25 days of institution decision and notify parties of date and location of ADR to occur within 45 days of institution decision. 3. Parties will attend teleconference with neutral to discuss ADR process, urgent issues and send retainer fee to neutral within 35 days of institution decision. ©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 18
  • 20. ADR Timeline ©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 4. Parties will submit ADR briefs outlining basic positions on validity issues, preferred claim constructions, settlement offer and issues to be addressed to facilitate settlement within 40 days of institution decision. 5. Parties, including principals, attend ADR to be held in person within 45 days of institution decision. 19
  • 21. ADR Considerations - Scope of confidentiality restrictions for the ADR  35 U.S.C § 294 (d) - Patentee shall file arbitration award with USPTO Director. So parties should agree on terms/issues not to be written in arbitration award (e.g. non-patentable/ invalidity decision is verbally provided and no written opinion on that issue).  35 USC § 317(b) - A [settlement] agreement shall be filed with PTAB and shall be treated as business confidential info and be kept separate from the files of the involved patent, unless good cause is shown to disclose. ©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 20
  • 22. ADR Considerations  Confirm parties will split ADR costs.  Obtain schedule and budget from arbitrator/mediator in advance of ADR to complete within 45 days. ©2016 Gould & Ratner LLP all rights reserved 21