Skip to content

PREVAIL Act Proposes Significant Changes To PTAB Proceedings


IP rights can be vital to the success of medical device companies.  Significant legislative changes governing some of these rights may be on the horizon.  Senators Coons (Delaware), Durbin (Illinois), Hirono (Hawaii), and Tillis (North Carolina), along with Congressman Ken Buck (Colorado) and Representative Deborah Ross (North Carolina) have introduced the bipartisan, bicameral PREVAIL Act to Congress.  The bill is awaiting committee consideration. And like all bills, the PREVAIL Act is subject to amendment prior to passing either chamber of Congress.  The bill purports to remedy “[u]nintended consequences of the comprehensive 2011 reform of patent laws [such as] the strategic filing of post-grant review proceedings to depress stock prices and extort settlements, the filing of repetitive petitions for inter partes and post grant review . . . and the unnecessary duplication of work by the district courts” and PTAB.  The bill has attracted high profile support, including former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Radar and former Director of the USPTO Andrei Iancu.  The PREVAIL Act proposes several significant changes to PTAB proceedings that medical device companies should be aware of.  Three are highlighted below:

First, the PREVAIL Act proposes limiting the parties who can bring PTAB proceedings, such as petitions for inter partes review, to those who would have standing to bring a declaratory judgment action in federal court.  Currently, any party who is not barred may bring an IPR proceeding.  This change would harmonize the requirements for bringing invalidity challenges in federal courts and in the PTAB.

Second, the PREVAIL Act proposes changing the petitioner’s burden of proof at the PTAB to “clear and convincing evidence.”  Currently, PTAB proceedings require proving invalidity by a “preponderance of the evidence” (essentially a “more likely than not” standard).  The “clear and convincing” standard, which is used for invalidity in federal courts, is often thought of as being between the preponderance of the evidence standard and the beyond reasonable doubt standard from criminal law.  Again, this change would harmonize the standards used in federal courts and the PTAB, which proponents of the bill argue will lead to a fairer result for patent owners.  Former Chief Judge Radar argued that this change would also limit the ability of alleged infringers to obtain lengthy stays of district court litigation.

Third, the PREVAIL Act proposes to “end duplicative patent challenges” by requiring “a party to choose between making its validity challenges before the PTAB or in another forum, such as federal court.  The bill also requires a party that is already involved in a separate proceeding to agree not to pursue the claims in the PTAB petition in that court, or any other forum.”  The bill’s proponents advocate that this ends a “problem” where patent challengers get “several bites at the apple by raising the same or similar validity challenges” in multiple forums.  As other advocates have noted, this change would put forum selection in the hands of the accused infringer, not the patent owner.

There are many other changes proposed in the PREVAIL Act that, if passed, would represent some of the most significant changes to PTAB proceedings since the introduction of IPRs and other post-grant proceedings a little over a decade ago. Senator Coons’ Office has created a Fact Sheet summarizing many of these changes.   Medical device companies should consult their counsel for how these proposed changes may impact their business.  The full text of the PREVAIL Act is available here.


, , , ,

PREVAIL Act Proposes Significant Changes To PTAB Proceedings Headshot

Brandon Smith

Brandon Smith is a partner in our Orange County office. His practice is focused on litigation with an emphasis on patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, and data privacy matters. His practice has included numerous district court cases across the country and multiple proceedings before the U.S. International Trade Commission.

In addition to his litigation experience with Knobbe Martens, Mr. Smith has served as a Deputy District Attorney with the Orange County District Attorney’s Office through the Trial Attorney Partnership program where he successfully prosecuted criminal matters, including a jury trial, as a first chair trial attorney.

Mr. Smith earned his Bachelor's of Science in Biomedical Engineering at California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo. Mr. Smith received his J.D. from the University of San Diego School of Law where he was Editor-in-Chief of Volume 52 of the San Diego Law Review.

View all posts published by Brandon Smith
By using this blog, you agree and understand that no information is being provided in the context of any attorney-client relationship. You further agree and understand that nothing herein is intended to be legal advice. This blog is solely informational in nature, and is not intended as, and should not be used as, a substitute for competent legal advice from a retained and licensed attorney in your state. Knobbe Martens LLP makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the information in this blog. Knobbe Martens LLP will not be liable for any injury or damages relating to your use of, or access to, any such information. Knobbe Martens LLP undertakes no obligation to correct or update information on this blog, which may be incorrect or become incorrect or out of date over time. Knobbe Martens LLP reserves the right to alter or delete content or information on the blog at any time. This blog contains links and references to other websites and publications that you may find of interest. Knobbe Martens LLP does not control, promote, endorse or otherwise have any affiliation with any other websites or publications unless those websites or publications expressly state such an affiliation. Knobbe Martens LLP further has no responsibility for, and makes no representations regarding, the content, accuracy or any other aspect of the information in such websites or publications.
close modal