Earlier this year, in E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V. (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Dupont v. Synvina”), the Federal Circuit found that the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“the Board”) had erred in holding that in an inter partes review (IPR), the burden to produce evidence of patentability did not shift to the patentee. Interestingly, in each of the previous two years the court also had occasion to address burden shifting in IPRs. In In re Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Magnum Oil”), the Board was found to have been wrong in deeming that when it institutes an IPR – which requires concluding that the petitioner has met the “reasonable likelihood of success” standard – that conclusion operated to shift the burden of producing evidence of patentability to the patentee. Also, in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Aqua Products”), the court considered whether a patentee could amend claims during an IPR only if it accepted the burden of proving that the substitute claims were patentable… The trio of cases, Dupont v. Synvina, Magnum Oil, and Dynamic Drinkware, considered together, are helpful for one’s understanding of the burden shifting framework in both IPR and district court litigation.
The post To Shift or Not to Shift: Burden Shifting Framework and the PTAB appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law.
Recent Posts
- Moratorium on State AI Regulation Scrapped in Senate Version of Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’
- Increasing Volume of Patent Deals Could Signal Bounce in Patent Marketplace | IPWatchdog Unleashed
- How the USPTO Could Make a Permanent After-Final Consideration Program Work
- Other Barks and Bites for Friday, June 27: EGC Says ‘NERO CHAMPAGNE’ Unduly Exploits Protected Designation of Origin; SCOTUS Seeks SG Views on Skinny Label Issues in Hikma; and a Big Week for Copyrights and AI
- PTAB Designates Informative Director Review Decision Vacating Institution of Two Petitions Challenging Same Claims