Posts Tagged: "Patent Trial and Appeal Board"

Native American tribal sovereign immunity thwarts both of these dilatory infringer tactics and repositions the negotiation to where it needs to be – outside of the courthouse. The tribe can inform detailed information to the infringer of their infringement and offer to enter into licensing negotiations without fear of being subjected to a DJ Action. Thus, the tribe can inform the infringer of their infringement and unless the tribe sues the infringer, the infringer will not be able to play the litigious gamesmanship or file the unending and procedurally unfair PTAB procedures. In sum, sovereign immunity equalizes the bargaining power between the inventor and the infringer and sets the negotiation table fairly.

A multitude of changes to patent law and practice have altered the face of patent litigation in America. From patent venue decisions in district courts that seem to be inconsistent with TC Heartland, to Indian Tribes acquiring patents and asserting sovereign immunity, the patent enforcement and defense landscape has changed dramatically over the past few months. Amidst these changing times, please join Gene Quinn for a free webinar webinar discussion – Hot Topics in Patent Litigation – on Thursday, October 12, 2017, at 12pm ET. Gene will be joined by former ITC Commissioner F. Scott Kieff and Keith Grady, Chair of IP and Technology Litigation at Polsinelli.

On September 22nd, a reply brief for appellant Cascades Projection LLC was filed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a case over the validity of patents covering projector technologies which were invented by Gene Dolgoff, the creator of the Star Trek Holodeck. The appeal against Japanese tech conglomerates Epson and Sony asks the Federal Circuit to decide whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) erred in invalidating patent claims held by Cascades Projection and whether the PTAB acted in a manner which violated Cascade Projection’s right to due process under the U.S. Constitution.

McCaskill’s seemingly calculated ploy to get out in front of other Senators, all alone in her demand for a legislative solution that strips Native American Indian Tribes of sovereign immunity, may backfire. The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, which acquired the Allergan RESTASIS® patents and then granted back to Allergan an exclusive license, issued a scathing statement.

Senator McCaskill (D-MO) has introduced a bill to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes as a defense in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Indeed, the sole purpose of McCaskill’s short, ill-conceived and hastily assembled bill is to make it impossible for Native American Indian Tribes that own patents to assert sovereign immunity when those patents are challenged in proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board… What this means is McCaskill’s bill cannot and will not remove claims of sovereign immunity from PTAB proceedings. McCaskill’s bill would only discriminate against Native American Indian Tribes.

First-take reaction to Aqua Products v. Matal from a distinguished panel of experts. Todd Dickinson: “I don’t think that I’ve ever seen such a collection of procedural somersaults and arcane discussion masquerading as an appellate opinion. ” Russell Slifer: “it would be wise for the USPTO and the PTAB to consider limiting all Board decisions wholly to the record developed during the proceeding. Eliminate the opportunity for a panel to issue a sua sponte reason for unpatentability.” Ashley Keller: “One could be forgiven for wondering if the Republic is truly well served entrusting such a tribunal with exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals.” John White: “This decision puts neon highlights around what is wrong with the PTAB process as it pursues the political outcome of ridding the system of ‘troublesome’, aka: ‘commercially valuable’, patents.” Plus much more.

Sitting en banc the Federal Circuit issued a narrow ruling saying that the burden of persuasion must remain at all times on the petitioner, including with respect to demonstration of unpatentability of amended claims… Judge O’Malley explained that the majority of the Federal Circuit found the statute on this point to be ambiguous and, therefore, no deference was given to any interpretation of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

This experiment in patent validity review an executive agency by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an Article I tribunal in the PTO, has been unsuccessful…The chief constraints of the public rights doctrine involve consent and due process by an Article I tribunal and review of tribunal determinations by an Article III court. None of these features are present in the PTAB review of issued patents. In fact, the PTAB has shown a massive number of institutional abuses of IPRs that have undermined its legitimacy and negated its determinations… Ultimately, it will be shown that PTAB has vastly worse patent validity review results than federal district courts because of a blatant disregard for due process. As a consequence of these observations, it should be clear that the PTO is susceptible to political influences by the powerful technology lobby’s false narrative of poor quality patents that resulted in creation of a sanctimonious mechanism for patent validity review to constrain competition from market entrants, with an effect to promote technology incumbent profits.

I used to receive telephone calls, quite frequently, asking about the procedure for preparing and filing a patent application. Today, I no longer receive these calls. I suspect the main reason is that inventors are giving up an expectation that patent protection is even worthwhile. And I get it. If I were to get a call these days, I could no longer paint a rosy picture for would-be patentees… But these days, I fear the conversation would have a different tone. It might go more like this… “for a mere $2,625,000 you can disclose your most important innovation to your competitors, and they can use it and make sure that you actually have no rights to it.”

The Court found the Board’s reliance on Woodland Trust to be “misplaced” because in that case there had been continued public use for a period of a decade without any documentary evidence to support conception. To the contrary, on the facts presented here there was some documentation over the period of several months. Furthermore, that documentation took place nearly twenty years ago, which according to the Court wrote made this situation far closer to Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Matsushita Electric, 266 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In Loral Fairchild the Court previously “forgave the inventor’s inability ‘to submit documents showing production test results, considering that the events at issue occurred almost 30 years ago’” — when the inventor’s account was otherwise adequately corroborated. Additionally, there was no one else suggested by either party as the actual inventor.

The next several weeks will see much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth about Allergan’s transaction with the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe. Our point is not to engage in futile “what about-ism…” but rather to illustrate how the PTAB is inherently subject to gamesmanship — from all directions — that destroys systemic credibility, which is undeniably bad for all parties, not just the one whose ox got gored today. As an administrative tribunal, the PTAB isn’t limited to resolving actual “cases or controversies” between parties like Article III courts are. The gates are open to all comers, and so are the unintended consequences.

The respondent immediately takes issue with the argument that patents are not public rights, summarily citing MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 812 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 292, which held that that neither Article III nor the Seventh Amendment bars IPRs, a holding that, according to the respondent, does not conflict with any decision of the Court or any other court of appeals, rendering further review unwarranted.

Idemitsu Kosan Co. v. SFC Co., the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision to invalidate as obvious certain patent claims directed to a device that emits light when electric current is passed through a particular organic medium… During inter partes review, it is possible for claims to be invalidated for reasons first articulated in rebuttal to a Patent Owner’s arguments. Patent owners should anticipate a petitioner’s counterarguments to its positions, including those made in Patent Owner’s Reply. Further, features of the invention that are alleged to distinguish over the prior art may not carry sufficient weight if they are not recited in the claims.

Inasmuch as the new Director can change, or do whatever they want once in the job, and will be subject to political winds, I thought I’d just tell them what I want and why. Simple. Here’s my list. First, believe in your product and the team that produces the product. Stop the labeling of “legitimate patents” as compared to other, presumably, “illegitimate patents”. There is only one type of patent, the one produced by the PTO. End of story. Each receives the examination it can in light of the fees paid. Each examination is done according to the laws and rules set forth in the statute and in accord with the CAFC administration of that statute vis-à-vis the PTO. This is true across all technologies. Examiner’s do the best they can with the tools available. This includes training, searching, and examining. The PTO does not favor one group over another. It calls balls and strikes in light of the relevant statute or rule.

In arguing that inter partes review (IPR) violates the U.S. Constitution, the petitioner in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC advances two theories. The first is that patents are private rights, not public rights, and therefore suits to invalidate patents must be tried before a jury under the Seventh Amendment. Second, even if the Seventh Amendment is not violated by IPRs, suits for invalidity must be tried in an Article III forum, not in an agency proceeding. The petitioner also takes issue with claim interpretation and claim amendment limitations during IPR, which are beyond the scope of this post.