My reasoning behind 30 days was based on the fact
Post# of 82686
(Total Views: 737)
Posted On: 10/26/2017 8:34:38 AM
My reasoning behind 30 days was based on the fact that although the PTAB's decision not to institute cannot be appealed, the petitioner(s) can still challenge the PTAB's decision by requesting a rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The rehearing request must be filed within 30 days of the PTAB's decision not to institute IPR for which no prior authorization from the PTAB is needed.
In the request, the petitioners should identify specifically all matters the PTAB misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed. Furthermore, the identified mistake must be more specific than the PTAB's ultimate conclusion not to institute IPR, and the petitioner should not attempt to introduce new arguments.
Chances of a successful request for rehearing are slim to none and only 12% of the PTAB's decisions actually grant a rehearing. Requesting a rehearing may be particularly useful where the PTAB’s non-institution decision does not identify any specific issues with the petition, such as including argument in claim charts or having deficiencies in the supporting expert declarations.
But if you read the Initial IPR response filed by R&G, you will notice that it's all buttoned up to it's perfection. IPR denial document released by PTAB i.e. http://jmp.sh/yWiPTv0 covered every claims, reviewed carefully & finally decided to deny institution on even one claim .
So, my 30 days window, gives me a confidence that none of these infringers will challenge the rehearing request but also will not move forward with the trial in District court. R&G has already filed the IPR decision to respective local jurisdiction where the cases are filed.
IPR denial has also buttoned up all infringed SFOR patents , which is good not only for current set of infringers but also for upcoming big ones. SFOR took a giant leap forward in it's litigation prong strategy with this IPR denial. So, in a nutshell, what is left for infringers to do?
Sit tight, and let Kay do his work which will be in the best interest of all stakeholders.
In the request, the petitioners should identify specifically all matters the PTAB misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed. Furthermore, the identified mistake must be more specific than the PTAB's ultimate conclusion not to institute IPR, and the petitioner should not attempt to introduce new arguments.
Chances of a successful request for rehearing are slim to none and only 12% of the PTAB's decisions actually grant a rehearing. Requesting a rehearing may be particularly useful where the PTAB’s non-institution decision does not identify any specific issues with the petition, such as including argument in claim charts or having deficiencies in the supporting expert declarations.
But if you read the Initial IPR response filed by R&G, you will notice that it's all buttoned up to it's perfection. IPR denial document released by PTAB i.e. http://jmp.sh/yWiPTv0 covered every claims, reviewed carefully & finally decided to deny institution on even one claim .
So, my 30 days window, gives me a confidence that none of these infringers will challenge the rehearing request but also will not move forward with the trial in District court. R&G has already filed the IPR decision to respective local jurisdiction where the cases are filed.
IPR denial has also buttoned up all infringed SFOR patents , which is good not only for current set of infringers but also for upcoming big ones. SFOR took a giant leap forward in it's litigation prong strategy with this IPR denial. So, in a nutshell, what is left for infringers to do?
Sit tight, and let Kay do his work which will be in the best interest of all stakeholders.
(7)
(0)