Whilst non-precedential, Valmont Indus. v. Lindsay Corp (Fed. Cir. 2018) seems to be the to start with publish-SAS Federal Circuit impression involving a partly-initiated inter partes assessment (IPR) continuing.
In its IPR petition, Lindsay challenged all 18 statements of Valmont’s U.S. Patent No. 7,003,357. The PTAB instituted, but only to statements 1-15 and 17-18 — the situation from Assert 16 was not strong sufficient. In its final final decision, the PTAB uncovered the statements evident besides for declare 11 and, of training course declare 16 (whose validity was not tried).
Meanwhile, in SAS, the Supreme Court docket dominated that the PTO simply cannot partly-institute its AIA trials, but instead, it will have to either hold trial on all the challenged statements or none of the challenged statements.
[The statute] directs that “[i]f an inter partes assessment is instituted and not dismissed less than this chapter, the [Board] shall situation a final created final decision with respect to the patentability of any patent declare challenged by the petitioner . . . .” §318(a) (emphasis additional). This directive is equally mandatory and complete. The word “shall” commonly imposes a nondiscretionary obligation. . . . SAS is entitled to a final created final decision addressing all of the statements it has challenged.
One particular open concern adhering to SAS is what-to-do with all the scenarios that have been partly instituted . . . Listed here, neither bash submitted any publish-SAS briefing and the court docket consequently ignored the situation — keeping that the PTAB erred on declare 11 and as a substitute that all of the tried statements should be cancelled.
Simply because the final decision here is non-precedential and sub silento, it is hard to discern much this means — but one summary is that the right to trial and created final decision on all challenged statements is a waivable right. In SAS, the court docket referred significantly to the right as an “entitlement” held by the petitioner — and most entitlements are waivable. The set up raises quite a few concerns – most notably (1) does the patentee also hold the entitlement and (2) may well the petitioner “waive” the all-challenged-statements right inside of the petition alone?
As an alternative theory — I dug into some of the files and uncovered that the aformentioned unjudged Assert 16 was afterwards challenged in an ex parte reexamination and Valmont calncelled the declare in that continuing. At that level, it is likely proper to say that it is no more time a “claim” issue to problem.