Viance, LLC v. Koppers Performance Chemicals, Inc.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Holding
The Director denied institution of Viance’s PGR challenging Koppers’ U.S. Patent No. 12,370,716 B2 in the chemical/wood-treatment technology area on discretionary grounds, applying NHK-Fintiv under § 314(a) and also invoking § 325(d). The denial rested on the advanced state of parallel litigation and discretionary efficiency concerns rather than a merits determination on the unidentified PGR grounds; the Director did not reverse a prior Board merits/institution decision.
Why It Matters
Practitioners should treat fast-moving parallel litigation as a potentially case-dispositive obstacle even in PGR practice, particularly where the Director views the petition as inefficient or duplicative. The decision also underscores that discretionary-denial arguments should be developed independently of the merits because the Director may deny without reaching prior-art or written-description issues.
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 6, 2026Inari Agriculture, Inc. v. Corteva Agriscience LLC
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 5, 2026O'Reilly Winship LLC v. SnapRays LLC
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 1, 2026Satius Holding, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026WSOU Investments LLC v. Salesforce, Inc.
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY