Posts Tagged: "Guest Contributor"

While researching the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) treatment of final Office actions for previous articles (Part I, Part II, Part III and Part IV, we noted, all too often, applicants acquiesce to premature or improper final Office actions rather than engage in a petition process they consider uncertain. Anecdotally, patent practitioners are often reluctant to challenge an examiner on petition without a clear understanding of the likelihood of success. Here in Part V, we research successful after final petitions: ones properly processed by the USPTO and promptly granted. We found, in many instances, favorable petition decisions are followed by a Notice of Allowance. What characteristics do these successful outcomes have in common?

As we thankfully see 2020 fading into the rear-view mirror and all look forward to a hopefully much better 2021, we want to take a moment to reflect on what the past year brought us and how the stage is set for another very fluid and consequential year for intellectual property policy. In times like these, it is clear that leadership matters more than ever. During some of the most challenging times our country has faced, there were a number of places where we saw strong leadership result in tangible progress. This year has already shown us a dramatic first few days. Beyond the tragic events in the U.S. Capitol, we saw the somewhat unexpected shift of power in the Senate to Democratic control based on the election of both Rev. Raphael Warnock and John Ossoff in Georgia. It is clear that the new Congress and the new Biden Administration will face huge challenges before we approach anything close to “normal” in any sense. That said, when it comes to IP, what can we expect?

As a Patent Agent, the work product coming out of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) seemed random to me. This article shares what I learned as a USPTO Patent Examiner that lifted the veil and shed light on that randomness. As a Patent Examiner I learned a powerful lesson: the approach that a Patent Examiner takes in interpreting claim language is learned by “on the job” training while working with USPTO trainers and other experienced USPTO examiners. The USPTO does not give new Patent Examiners detailed training on how to interpret claim language. Understanding the unique lens through which each examiner is viewing the application and prior art is critical to working effectively with Patent Examiners. Some Examiners interpret very broadly and allow fewer applications, while other examiners interpret more narrowly and allow more applications.   

Per the usual slow January, it was a light week at both the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and in the district courts. At the PTAB, parties filed just 16 petitions—three post grant reviews (PGRs) (including a Regeneron filing) and 13 inter partes reviews (IPRs), which, if memory serves, is the lowest of the past 12 months. In district court, just 34 filings played out, with the noted absence (seemingly weekly at this point) of any new WSOU suits.  And, as mentioned previously, there’s still no evidence that Uniloc is moving to correct their filings before the USPTO to include the necessary party, Fortress, as their exclusive licensee.

Since the Supreme Court’s Alice decision in 2014, inventors have faced extra hurdles trying to protect their software-related inventions with patents. A chief obstacle has been satisfying the two-part test for eligibility under Section 101 set forth in Alice and Mayo. To meet this test, claimed subject matter must not be directed to a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, (Step One), and if it is, must add “significantly more” to provide an inventive concept (Step Two)…. Theodore Rand reported in IPWatchdog last week, a disturbing but not surprising trend. Rand found that, in 2020, 81% of software-related patents on appeal for subject matter eligibility in decided precedential cases (22 of 27) were found invalid. But in three cases, software-related patents were found drawn to eligible subject matter for patent purposes. Id. In each of the three cases, the appeals court pointed to aspects of the patent specifications themselves. Looking more closely at the representative claims and court’s comments with respect to the corresponding patent specification is illuminating. In particular, the court looked to the specifications for evidence of performance improvements over conventional systems, description of a technical problem/solution, and technological advantages.

Judge Kimberly Moore, in a comprehensive and insightful opinion dissenting from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc in Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., 927 F.3d 1333 (2019), emphasized that the lack of clarity in Section 101 jurisprudence is one of the most critical issues in patent law. Sensing no interest by her colleagues in crafting an opinion with sufficient common denominators to provide instructions to trial judges on how to navigate the cross-currents created by Federal Circuit decisions post-Mayo/Alice, Judge Moore advised litigants: “Your only hope lies with the Supreme Court or Congress.” Id. at 1363. Not now. Several months after Athena, the USPTO took the initiative to issue a guidance document “October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility,” in response to requests by numerous stakeholders for more clarity and predictability. Consequently, in light of well-established Supreme Court precedent in administrative law, there is every reason for the Federal Circuit to now adopt the analysis of these Guidelines in future Section 101 cases.

In Part I of this article, I explained that the CAFC invalidated almost every software patent on appeal for eligibility in 2020 and recapped the first 13 such cases of the year. Despite the many software eligibility cases decided last year, there is still some uncertainty about what passes muster under the Alice two-step framework. Below is a recap of the remaining 14 cases considered by the CAFC in 2020 with respect to software patent eligibility.

Combining the holiday break, we see a steady 24 and 25 Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) petitions filed in the last two weeks, respectively, with 84 and 71 District Court complaints filed, respectively. The 84 was again bumped up roughly 10 by another round of WSOU filings, this time against Salesforce; otherwise it was the typical mix of small file-and-settle non-practicing entity (NPE) additions (mostly IP Edge, seemingly filling out some kind of annual quotas, and with a new campaign against shuttle services), bigger funded NPEs like Acacia and Dominion Harbor entities, small filers, and a smattering of company-company filings. Cedar Lane also ended the year strong, adding a few logs to the yule fire.

Last year was an active one at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) for software eligibility. It also was a brutal year for patent owners, as the CAFC invalidated almost every software patent on appeal for eligibility. Despite the many cases decided last year, there is still some uncertainty about what passes muster under the Alice two-step framework promulgated by the Supreme Court in 2014. But one thing that has become increasingly clear is that the CAFC wants to see how a particular result is achieved or how a problem is solved. This desire for a “how” or rule set from the claims creates an evident tension with the traditional notion that patent claims should recite structure, not functional language. These recent CAFC cases have also made it clear that courts will look to the specification for implementation details, even if these details do not emerge in the claims. This analysis has previously been reserved for the written description requirement under Section 112 but found its way into the Alice two-step.

In Part I of this five-part series, the authors reviewed the law behind subsequent patent applications. In Part II, we reviewed the different types of subsequent applications. In Parts III and IV we discussed various implications of the types of subsequent applicants. And now, in Part V, we provide practice tips drawn from the case law cited in this series, as well as derived from omphaloskepsis.

In 2015, Randy dela Fuente launched Snapizzi. Randy had bet big, putting his career, savings, and company at risk. Later, Randy brought in a business partner, Chris Scoones, who cleaned out his savings and mortgaged his house. But they believed in the patent. On the patent’s government-issued cover, it stated that Snapizzi would have the “right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention. This meant that U.S. Patent No. 8,794,506 would protect their company from infringers and give them enough time to carve a toehold in the market. That patent cover also said that the patent was “granted under law”, which meant that it was a legally granted and presumed valid property right. In America, we are a nation of laws. Randy trusted the U.S. government, and this made the burden of huge risk much more tolerable. But in December 2019, a court held that the claims are all ineligible for patenting because they are “abstract ideas”.

While coronavirus spent the majority of 2020 wreaking havoc on earth, pharmaceutical companies have been busy at work trying to invent a vaccine to combat it. Several companies, such as Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca, have competed neck and neck to be the first to deliver a cure to the world. Renowned pharmaceutical companies have been successful in developing the vaccine, which will be protected under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS).

Novel and non-obvious can be easily used to describe the events of 2020, both here in the United States and around the world. Despite all the challenges, there have been positive developments in the way we conduct business—and that certainly was true at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Below we recap some of the most significant developments at the USPTO in 2020 and topics to keep an eye on in 2021.

If you’re looking for some positive patent news from 2020, count the heightened civic awareness of our intellectual-property/innovation policies, as a result of the global pandemic, as a silver lining. But our present task is to report on the 2020 highlights from the Federal Circuit; unfortunately, it’s all downhill from here. If 2019 had Section 101 law as its defining issue, given the Federal Circuit and
Supreme Court’s slate of rulings and non-rulings, 2020 only seemed to make the Section101 exclusions even broader. The capstone was AAM, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, 966 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the Federal Circuit’s denial of en-banc consideration (again) of Section 101 rulings that, all judicial protests aside, seemed to plainly expand a reviewing court’s power under Section 101 (again). And in ways many would’ve thought unimaginable just six-to-eight years ago, when Mayo-Alice emerged from the Supreme Court with only “inventive-concept” tests ringing about. Neapco’s panel ruling in the fall of 2019 was the proverbial shot across the Section112 bow.

The week before Christmas brought the biggest post-grant review (PGR) bulk filing to date, with 10 matters all stemming from a pharmaceutical dispute between Allergan and BTL Medical Technologies (and one other, unrelated). That’s a steady average of 30 inter partes reviews (IPRs) propped up by the glut of 11 PGRs stemming from that dispute, discussed below. The 81 district court cases were again propped up by WSOU adding their usual dozen or so complaints and a new defendant, this time adding Salesforce to their ever-growing campaign asserting some of their 4,000 or so Nokia patents against seemingly the entire world.