Posts Tagged: "inter partes review"

There are several varieties of a stay. With post grant proceedings we’re talking mostly about discretionary stay. Every district court has inherent right to do this. Judges are generally favorable to granting stays with more being granted than not. “All a judge has to do is get burned once by not granting a stay, going to trial to the end, and then having claims invalidated by the Board and then having to have an appeal,” says John J. Marshall, law professor at Villanova University School of Law, previously Of Counsel at Drinker Biddle. The initial stay before a petition is granted is short. Then after the petition is granted, the district court judges are more likely to grant a stay, because IPR will simplify issues that might be important to the district court judge. That quick timeline is one of the factors that helps you get a stay for concurrent litigation and getting ammunition for use in district court claim construction. In fact, you may find that these factors are so persuasive that if a defendant in district court case files a petition for IPR, and you, as another defendant, can’t join because you are past the one month joinder cutoff, you still may be asked to stay your case until other defendant’s IPR concludes. As of October 2013, contested stay motions pending IPR petitions have a 68.5 percent grant rate and those pending CBM petitions have an 83 percent grant rate, according to a Finnegan infographic based on the published PTO AIA statistics. Those are really good rates. It’s something to consider even in districts like Delaware or East Texas.

A goal of nearly every defendant is to lower the total cost of resolution of any legal issue. As counsel for the defendant, you have to weigh the settlement and licensing costs of a patent dispute against the total defense cost and how long it takes to resolve the dispute with certainty. Today, CBM, IPR, and PGR are the lowest possible cost options. Speed is one of the biggest benefits. The statute requires that a PGC proceeding must be completed in 12 months after institution, and in rare cases this extends to 18 months if the PTAB exercises a good cause exception. APJs are motivated to stay on deadline.

A brake-down of the major provisions, the Amendments that passed and some key Amendments that failed… On Thursday, December 5, 2013, the United States House of Representatives passed the Innovation Act by a vote of 325-91. Surprisingly, the Innovation Act (HR 3309) had only been introduced on October 23, 2013, and was marked-up on November 20, 2013. “This schedule suggests the fix was in,” said Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) on December 3, 2013, “The clear message to little inventors: give thanks for your intellectual property rights, because you may not have them by this time next year.”

As evidenced by the numbers above, the Board takes as many cases as they reasonably can within the statute. If there’s a good case to be made that a case could be litigated in PTAB, it’s usually accepted. As of last month, the office has instituted 192 trials and denied 32 trials for an overall institution rate of 85.7 percent, according to a statistics report compiled by the PTO. One example of this is Intellectual Venture Management, LLC v. XILINX, Inc., IPR2012-00018, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2013). Here, XILINX argued that IVM’s petition should be denied, because IVM failed to identify all the real parties in interest as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1). XILINX pointed to another case in California where IVM was listed with 5 other defendants in a suit that had 63 entities as evidence of IVM’s failure. The Board ruled in IVM’s favor, saying that XINLINX had not given any argument for why the civil local rules of the Northern District of California are analogous to the Board’s rule on real parties in interest or for specifically why any of the 63 entities were real parties of interest.

There is a battle cry against abusive litigants in the patent industry. Among the tactics suggested is a “loser pays” system to try to mirror Europe, where this type of abuse is minimal. The Congressional Research Service presents that 92% of companies who assert but do not make products (over broadly and derisively called “trolls”) lose litigation that reaches judgment on the merits… Defendants can call upon the PTO to trigger up front fee shifting for the patent owner and an accelerated PTO determination on the validity, even potentially before the court analyzes it. But there’s more. IPRs and CBMs can be used to drive settlement, either before or after filing. Pre-filing, a drafted petition can be shown to the patent owner as a basis to settle.

EDITOR’S NOTE: What follows is a summary of the Goodlatte patent bill created by American Continental Group, which is a government affairs and strategic consulting firm in Washington, DC. Manus Cooney, a former Chief Counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee is one of the partners at ACG, and is also frequent guest contributor on IPWatchdog.com. Cooney and his partners and associates worked to prepare this summary, which was described as a team effort. It is republished here with permission.

Our inter partes challenge data from pre- and post-passage of the AIA clearly show that of the relatively few initial denials made by the USPTO of an inter partes challenge request, most fell on entities that typically file as small entities. We found 88% of denied petitions for inter partes review were filed by small entities, while only 12% of those denials related to petitions filed by large entities (Fig. 6). That is, small entities are 7 times more likely to have their petitions for inter partes review denied than large entities.

Legend #1: Small Companies have greatly benefited from the new inter partes review procedure in their challenge of the patents of others. Truth: The ratio of large to small entities requesting inter partes action against the patent of another has completely flipped from pre-AIA times, such that now the vast majority of requests are by large entities as opposed to small entities. In fact, almost half of all inter partes review requests are now being filed by only the largest companies in the world, with comparatively fewer filings being made by small entity companies.

Myth 4: Patents of NPEs fare much more poorly in reexamination proceedings brought during litigation than those of Producers. Truth: When one includes independent inventors and independent inventors in the mix of NPEs, the patents being asserted by NPEs may be said to fare slightly more poorly in reexamination proceedings than those patents asserted by Producers. However, if one removes these independent inventor entities from the mix of NPEs, the patents held by non-independent inventor based NPEs were seen to do at least as well, if not better, than the average asserted patent of the Producers which was likewise thrown into reexamination during litigation.

A new addition to the program just announced today is David Kappos, who is the immediate former Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Kappos, a life-long employee of IBM prior to taking charge of the USPTO, is now with Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP in New York City. Kappos will discuss the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, specifically discussing ex parte reexamination, the remaining legacy inter partes reexamination cases, inter partes review and the transitional program relating to covered business method patents. His segment will run from 9:15 am to 10:15 am. In addition to being presented live in New York City the program will also be webcast.

Hanlon started with statistics relating to the variety of new procedures that were ushered in as part of either phase one or phase two implementation of the America Invents Act (AIA). He started with prioritized examination, which went into effect on September 26, 2011. Between inception and February 19, 2013, there have been 8,554 requests for prioritized examination, with 94% of requests granted. In those cases where the petition was granted there were only 55 days from petition grant to the First Office Action, and the average days to final disposition has been just 168 days. So far there have been 3,667 final dispositions mailed with 1,828 allowances mailed, which corresponds to an allowance rate of 49.9%, which isn’t bad, but didn’t initially strike me as great either.

It’s no secret patent litigation costs are immense. According to the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the cost of an average patent lawsuit, where $1 million to $25 million is at risk, is $1.6 million through the end of discovery and $2.8 million through final disposition. Adding insult to injury, more than 60% of all patent suits are filed by non-practicing entities (NPEs) that manufacture no products and rely on litigation as a key part of their business model. Patent litigation will always be costly, but by planning, preparing, assessing, narrowing and focusing – the attentive client or counsel may succeed in achieving some predictability and keeping costs to a minimum.

Right now the best business to be in at the moment is the patent enforcement business, at least if you are concerning yourself with low-risk monetization with high reward. Between the legacy issue of bad patents, patent auctions and the many who purchase patents, what has started to happen is that the patent system rewards those who have the finances and ability to game the system. But the problem is extraordinarily complex.

Kappos on final rules to implement the AIA: “We put together a good set of rules, but they are by no means a perfect set of rules.” Kappos explained that typically in Washington administrative rules are written and may be changed some time in the future, but not very quickly. That was not the USPTO approach. “Our approach was different,” he explained. The USPTO approach is one of continuing improvement. “We are already talking about convening the state holder community again after a few months when there is data to discuss.” The goal is to get feedback and make any necessary changes to continually improve the rules.

While the search for prior art won’t likely be impacted, the value of the prior art located will be dramatically impacted according to Ken Hattori, partner in the Washington, D.C. firm of Westerman, Hattori, Daniels & Adrian, LLP. “US patents with a foreign priority claim will become tremendously stronger as prior art,” says Hattori. “The subject matter disclosed in the US patent has an effectively filed date as priority date since the Hilmer doctrine is eliminated.” This is significant because “there will be no Section 112 requirement for the description of the subject matter disclosed in the foreign specification. Thus, the subject matter in a prior art US patent or application will go back to the foreign filing date as a reference.”