In an interesting case that has caught the attention of legal professionals worldwide, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) has the liberty to issue a final written decision in a post-grant review (PGR) proceeding even after the statutory deadline has passed. JD Supra reports on this unprecedented development.
Setting a new precedence, the case was Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Collegium Pharm., Inc., Case No. 22-1482 under the purview of Judges Dyk, Hughes, Stoll, of the Federal Circuit. The conclusion was made on November 21, 2023.
The case was brought to the forefront by Purdue Pharma L.P. against Collegium Pharm., Inc., challenging the latter’s patent in the court. The deliberations spanned over months, but due to unforeseen circumstances, the final written decision couldn’t be issued within the statutory deadline. What followed was a landmark judgment which now enables the PTAB to issue a final written decision in a PGR proceeding after the statutory deadline.
This case’s verdict puts a different perspective to the dynamics of business patent disputes and the role of statutory deadlines. This may interest many corporate lawyers and businesses involved in patent disputes, where the final written decision has been delayed due to uncontrollable factors, suggesting that delay can be acceptable under certain circumstances.
Naturally, this development will stir conversations related to the implications of this verdict, and on how the PTAB’s authority to issue its decisive statements post-deadline may impact patent disputes in the future. With numerous organizations constantly intertwined in patent litigations, the takeaway from this case could indeed prove to be substantial in shaping procedures and expectations within the legal world.