In A.R.M. Inc. v. Cottingham Agencies LTD., the Patent Trail and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute an Inter Partes Review (IPR) because each of the asserted rejections relied on a reference that was not adequately proven to be a printed publication. IPR2014-00671, Paper 10 (October 3, 2014).The PTAB is not amused: IPR Petition denied for failure to prove up document as printed publication

U.S. Pat. 7,666,103 is directed to an “Amusement Ride” which allows riders to simulate flying through the air and provides a “thrilling sensation.”  In its IPR Petition, the Petitioner relied on a device (the Barnstormer ride) that was sold and in use in the general public.  The Petitioner futher produced a brochure noting that the product was used in public at the Opryland Amusement Park in 1997, which was more than one year prior to the filing of the ’103 patent.  The Patent Owner challenged the use of this borochure in its Preliminary Response.

The expert testimony accompanying the IPR Petition noted that the Barnstormer ride was installed and operated at various parks between the 1970s and the 1990s.  However, the expert testimony did not date the provided brochure, nor did the brochure contain any self-dating.

The PTAB noted that in order to determine whether a given reference is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. §311,  a case-by-case inquiry regarding the circumstances of the reference’s disclosure to the public is made.  The key to the inquiry is whether the reference was “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the critical date.

The PTAB then found that the Petitioner offered no evidence that the provided brochure was disseminated or otherwise made available to the public to the extent that interested persons could have located the document.  Because of this, the PTAB concluded that the Petitioner did not establish a reasonable likelihood of success of prevailing in the challenge of the ’103 patent.

This decision shows the importance of proving up any references that are not clearly publications on the face of the document.  It further shows the importance for the Patent Owner to carefully study the petition and to address any potential defects in a preliminary response.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Nate Rees (US) Nate Rees (US)

Nate Rees joined Norton Rose Fulbright in 2007 and focuses his practice on intellectual property matters. He has experience in obtaining and enforcing patents in the areas of telecommunications, electronics, computer hardware and software, biomedical devices, computer networking and a variety of mechanical…

Nate Rees joined Norton Rose Fulbright in 2007 and focuses his practice on intellectual property matters. He has experience in obtaining and enforcing patents in the areas of telecommunications, electronics, computer hardware and software, biomedical devices, computer networking and a variety of mechanical arts.

Nate is registered to practice in front of the US Patent and Trademark Office. His patent prosecution experience includes drafting patent applications and responding to office actions from the US Patent Office as well as from foreign patent offices. He has also guided numerous patent applications through the administrative appeals process.  Nate’s intellectual property experience also includes assisting clients with licensing their technology and with due diligence reviews related to intellectual property.

Nate is the co-chair of the firm’s Post-Issuance USPTO Practice Group and is extensively involved in both invalidating and defending patents which have been drawn into post issuance USPTO proceedings.  This experience has included arguing inter partes cases in front of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  As many of these cases have been involved in litigation while the USPTO proceeding is pending, Nate has crafted and executed strategies which address various issues that arise from having these cases in parallel.

Prior to attending law school, Nate worked at an engineering firm and conducted masters research, where he primarily focused his attention on the development and improvement of various medical imaging devices. Representative devices include CT, MRI, ultrasound, SQUID’s (magnetoencephalography) and novel handheld RF imaging devices. During this time, Nate gained practical experience working within the many facets of the electrical arts including electromagnetic propagation, signal processing, digital/analog circuit design, antenna design and control system design.

Read more about Nate Rees (US)
Show more Show less
Related posts
More SAS: PTAB “May” Revoke Institution in Some Pending Trials
April 30, 2018
All-or-Nothing: Supreme Court Requires Instituted IPRs to Address All Challenged Claims
April 25, 2018
District Court holds that IPR estoppel does not apply to grounds denied institution on the merits
February 7, 2017