Posts Tagged: "IPR"

Celgene faces a new gang of generics moving in on its blockbuster Revlimid®.  Over the past year, a number of generics have filed ANDAs against Revlimid®, including Dr. Reddy’s, Zydus, Cipla, and Lotus Pharmaceutical.  Those ANDAs have triggered corresponding Hatch-Waxman lawsuits from Celgene.  Among the asserted patents, most of them expire by 2022, with the exception of two polymorph patents that could extend Revlimid® monopoly until 2027.  The lawsuits are in their early stages, but an upcoming Markman hearing in the case against Dr. Reddy’s is shaping up to be critical to whether Celgene can protect is Revlimid® monopoly past 2022.

The USPTO issued a final rule to set or adjust certain patent fees as the agency is authorized to do under the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011. The fee increases, which include some significant increases to petitioners filing for inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, are ostensibly meant to cover costs for USPTO operations, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) operations and administrative services as the USPTO attempts to achieve strategic goals including backlog reductions and “patent quality enhancements.”… The OMB’s determination of the new fees as a “transfer payment” means that the rule isn’t subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13771, titled Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs and signed on January 30th of this year.

Luckily for Apple and Microsoft, however, VirnetX did not assert the ‘135 patent against Mangrove Partners, a hedge fund, which filed a petition for IPR against the ‘135 patent on April 14th, 2015; Mangrove reportedly shorted VirnetX stock around this time. On October 7th, 2015, the PTAB panel adjudicating the case decided to institute the IPR as the petitioner Mangrove had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving invalidity of the challenged claims. Then in January 2016, Apple was successful in having its petition for IPR review of the challenged ‘135 claims joined to Mangrove’s IPR. VirnetX had objected to Apple’s motion for joinder based on the Section 315(b) language but the PTAB found that Section 315(b) did not apply to joinder motions which are governed by 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).

It is no secret that the fortunes of Mountain View, CA-based tech conglomerate Alphabet Inc. are largely based upon the advertising revenues accrued through its subsidiary Google and its incredibly popular search engine. The company’s most recent earnings report for the third quarter of 2017 shows that, of the company’s $22.5 billion in revenues for the quarter, $19.8 billion came from Google advertising revenues. That’s nearly 90 percent of Google’s entire revenues for the third quarter; the rest comes from Google’s other revenues ($2.4 billion) and Alphabet’s Other Bets ($197 million). The name of the corporation may be Alphabet but that entity is nothing without Google and its advertising revenues.

The United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in SAS Institute v. Matal on Monday, November 27, 2017. This case will give the Supreme Court the opportunity to declare whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board must issue a written decision covering all claims challenged in an inter partes review proceeding. In advance of this much anticipated hearing, I reached out to a number of industry insiders with a simple question: What are you thoughts and predictions on SAS Institute in advance of Supreme Court oral arguments? Their answers follow.

The United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Oil States v. Greene’s Energy Group on Monday, November 27, 2017. This case will give the Supreme Court its first opportunity to address the constitutionality of the inter partes review procedures created by the America Invents Act (AIA). In advance of this much anticipated hearing, I reached out to a number of industry insiders with a simple question: What are you thoughts and predictions on Oil States in advance of Supreme Court oral arguments? Their answers follow… As for my thoughts — I’m going to go out on a limb this time with my prediction that the Supreme Court will find IPRs unconstitutional.

Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, now scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court on November 27, is clearly receiving all the attention this fall. The possibility of finding Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) post grant proceedings unconstitutional cannot be understated. But oral arguments will also be heard on that same day in the less-noticed SAS Institute v. Matal… Should any form of IPRs survive Oil States, the following SAS Institute decision should be watched with equal anticipation. A reversal in SAS Institute will no doubt have you rethinking your PTAB strategy.

Of the 1,582 patents with a final written decision, 1,343 were found to have defects by the PTAB. That is an 85% defect rate. Only 239 patents were affirmed to be fully compliant with the statutes by the PTAB. Yet the Office of Patent Quality Assurance (OPQA) claims a 6-8% defect rate… 263 patents were found valid in full and fair trials in a court of law and also tried in the shortcut infringer-biased PTAB. Only 63 of them got the same results in both venues. The other 200 the PTAB came to a different conclusion. If the courts are correct then the PTAB is wrong 76% of the time.

U.S. Inventor, the nationwide inventor advocacy organization representing over 13,000 members, including, individual inventors, university research institutions, patent holders and intellectual property dependent start-up businesses, today announced that its members will stage a protest in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on November 27th during oral arguments in the case of Oil States Energy Services, LLC v Greene’s Energy Group, LLC.

Only Article III courts can provide a fair, neutral and unbiased forum for assessment of patent validity. For over two hundred years, patent validity, patent infringement and patent damages have been consolidated to be heard in federal district courts. Federal courts supply impartial judges that are immune from influence by the executive or legislative branches. Furthermore, federal courts supply jury trials that enable a fair application of due process rights in the hearing of a patent dispute. Patent validity review is only a single component of patent infringement cases and it is efficient to have this component of the matter reviewed in a single matter.

The industry reaction to Aqua Products v. Matal has been swift. In IPWatchdog’s Industry Roundup blog post, there was broad acclaim. However, for those involved with post-grant proceedings before the AIA, however, Aqua Products at most means a return to the amending regime allowed under the previous inter partes post-grant procedure, inter partes reexaminations. Given that IPRs were explicitly designed to extend and amend the previous inter partes reexamination procedures, a comparison of amendment practice under the two procedures makes a number of lessons clear.

The PTO systematically administers a collection of procedures in IPRs to unduly harm patent holders and benefit big tech company infringers. The data show that the plain result of PTAB procedures appears to benefit infringers with a clear bias against patent holders. PTAB cancels challenged claims in 76% of instituted patent reviews, a rate that is 2 ½ times greater than in the federal district courts. The reason is that PTAB employs a set of procedures that stacks the deck against patent holders. There is clear bias at every step of the process of reviewing patent validity. However, there are several components of PTAB procedures that are particularly onerous and problematic and that go to the heart of the due process issues that infect IPRs.

In Owens Corning v. Fast Felt Corp, Fast Felt sued Owens Corning for infringement, and Owens Corning filed a petition with the PTO seeking inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7. All of the challenged claims contain the term “roofing or building cover material.” Owens Corning argued that the claims are obvious over Lassiter, Hefele, and Eaton. The Board concluded that Owens Corning failed to show obviousness of any of the challenged claims… While the preferred embodiment of a claim might focus on a particular element of the claim, this is not enough to narrow the claim scope of the IPR. The Board must still give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Where the record and a correct claim construction support only one result, reversal is warranted, without need for remand.

In Organik Kimya AS v. Rohm & Haas Co., Organik Kimya AS (“Organik”) appealed the decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in two related inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings for which Organik is the Petitioner. The Patent Owner is Rohm & Haas Co. The Board sustained the patentability of the challenged claims, Organik appeals… When confronted with expert experiments and testimony, practitioners must provide sufficient evidence and argument to negate and outweigh the testimony – unsupported critiques of the expert’s methodology and challenges of relevance are insufficient.