The PTAB issued an informative decision denying an IPR petition due to inconsistencies in claim construction arguments made by the petitioner compared to parallel district court litigation. The petitioner contended that certain claim terms were means-plus-function under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) in court but argued for a different interpretation in the IPR, which the PTAB found problematic. This lack of alignment led the Board to conclude that the petitioner failed to meet procedural requirements, emphasizing the necessity to maintain a consistent legal position across different judicial venues to avoid procedural deficiencies that can result in denial of the petition.
The Board addressed how a petitioner can’t contradict its claim construction in IPR proceedings when it previously argued means-plus-function in district litigation.
The PTAB emphasized the importance of consistency between IPR proceedings and parallel litigations, highlighting procedural adherence, especially in claim construction.
The decision underscores that failing to properly address claim terms can lead to significant consequences, including the denial of institution based on procedural grounds.
The ruling serves as a caution against contradictory legal arguments in different venues, reinforcing the need for a coherent legal strategy.
Collection
[
|
...
]