LAIPLALAIPLA
LAIPLALAIPLA
  • About
    • About LAIPLA
    • Ambassador Outreach Program
    • Board of Directors
    • Committees
    • Administration
    • Member Firms and Companies
    • Past Presidents
    • Recent Past Presidents
    • Public Service Award
    • Diversity Fellowship
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • Membership
  • Sponsorship
  • Contact
  • About
    • About LAIPLA
    • Ambassador Outreach Program
    • Board of Directors
    • Committees
    • Administration
    • Member Firms and Companies
    • Past Presidents
    • Recent Past Presidents
    • Public Service Award
    • Diversity Fellowship
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • Membership
  • Sponsorship
  • Contact

HP v. MPJH Technology: Pitfall, Presenting Too Many Grounds in an Inter Partes Review

April 5, 2016| in Wegner's Writings| by Hal Wegner

Today in HP Inc. v. MPJH Technology Investments, LLC, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. 2016)(Lourie, J.), petitioner in a merits appeal to the PTAB unsuccessfully challenged denial of institution of inter partes review on a specific ground deemed “redundant” amongst its eight grounds presented in its petition (and thus denied consideration).

Failure to Selectively Choose Grounds for Invalidity, a Warning!:  The particular “redundant” ground was one of eight (8) grounds presented in the original petition. Petitioner unsuccessfully sought to reopen the “redundant” (denied) ground in its merits appeal. The Board cited Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Automated Creel Sys., Inc., ___ F.3d ___, ___, slip. op. at 6–9 (Fed. Cir., 2016); and Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., ___ F.3d ___, ___ slip op. at 7–9 (Fed. Cir. 2016), for the proposition “that § 314(d) bars [PTAB] review of the Board’s decision not to institute IPR on redundancy grounds.”

PTAB’s Promise of a Second Bite at the Apple:  The PTAB panel suggests that Petitioner has a remedy by filing a second proceeding:  “[A] redundancy determination *** only prevents the claim from being challenged on a particular basis in that particular IPR proceeding.  *** [Petitioner] may challenge whether [the claim] is unpatentable as obvious in another petition. As in Achates [Reference Publishing v. Apple Inc.,803 F.3d 652 (Fed. Cir. 2015)], then, a refusal to institute review on the basis of redundancy does not impact the Board’s authority to find a claim unpatentable.” (citation omitted).

Redundant “Placekeeper” Ground for a Future Challenge: HP v. MPJH Technology implicitly teaches the merits of presenting a “redundant” ground in a petition as an insurance policy to keep the door open to an estoppel-free second patent challenge.

Regards,
Hal

IP Blog Categories

  • Announcements
  • Events
  • LAIPLA News
  • The TTABlog
  • Uncategorized
  • Wegner's Top 10
  • Wegner's Writings

Archives

Previous

Fred E. McKelvey (†)( – 2016)

Next

Philippe Riesen, Transitions


Since 1934, LAIPLA has been educating and connecting members of the local intellectual property legal community

Pages

About 
Events
Membership
Sponsorship
Contact
Privacy Policy

Search
Contact

LAIPLA
1621 W 25th Street
Box 633
San Pedro, CA 90732
Phone: (323) 285-1654
Fax: ( 310) 878-0517
Email: office@laipla.net

© 2025 Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association. All Rights Reserved | Website design by Arclight Digital.