Posts Tagged: "post grant procedures"

In three related decisions (most recently including a denial of rehearing en banc by a badly divided 6-5 decision issued concurrently with reissuance of the earlier panel decision) titled In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, the Federal Circuit has held: (1) claim construction in IPR proceedings is governed by the prosecution standard of “broadest reasonable interpretation,” rather than the adjudicatory standard applied in the district courts (i.e., claim terms have their “ordinary and customary meaning” per the 2004 Federal Circuit decision of Phillips v. AHW Corp.); and (2) the Federal Circuit lacks appellate jurisdiction to review the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR proceeding. Whether the AIA permits appellate review of improperly instituted IPR proceedings, the Administrative Procedures Act clearly permits such appellate review.

Bill Cosby quipped ‘I brought you in this world, and I can take you out.’ The Patent Office makes similar arguments in court defending inter partes review. In a filing by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on June 26, 2015, in my clients’ case asserting the unconstitutionality of inter partes review, the Patent Office writes: “Because Congress may authorize the PTO to issue patents in the first instance, Congress may equally authorize the PTO to reconsider its patentability decisions and to correct its mistakes.”

Patent prosecution describes the interaction between applicants and their representatives, and a patent office with regard to a patent, or an application for a patent. (source: Wikipedia). It is a well-known term of art commonly used in the IP community. On the other hand, patent persecution describes the activities among various actors currently dismantling the US patent system, block by block. It is a recent phenomenon and seems to know no boundaries. (source: read the news!).

Chien argues that it is impossible for someone to donate their technology without fearing that another will get a patent on it and defeat the well-meaning donation to the public. Such a statement plays into urban mythology and preys upon those who are convinced that patent applicants can and do steal innovations and get patents instead of the rightful inventor. If that were actually true I’d be all in favor of opening up the patent system, whatever that means. Unfortunately, Chien builds her argument on a factually erroneous foundation.

It’s great that John Oliver brought the subject of patent trolls, about which IPWatchdog has already produced some considerable coverage, to an audience that topped 1.4 million viewers. But there are a significant number of stakeholders in the ongoing patent debate who are not in favor of the Innovation Act and they’re not, as John Oliver would have you believe, simply lobbyists for trial lawyers. For example, the Innovation Alliance, which is made up of innovator companies, does not support the Innovation Act. Neither do independent inventor groups, independent inventors, innovative startup companies, biotechnology companies or universities. If John Oliver is for helping small business victims of patent trolls while preserving patent rights he should actually be promoting the STRONG Patents Act and not the Innovation Act.

Congress created AIA trial proceeding to combat trolls, not create an altogether new class of them. Since the initial filings of Hayman, the STRONG ACT has been introduced in the Senate and includes a provision that would require standing for IPR petitioners (presumably to thwart such filings). However, companies not only employ IPR as an alternative to ongoing litigation but as a due diligence tool to avoid such situations in the first instance. Innovators looking to develop a new product line, or new area of business should have the freedom to clear the landscape of improvidently granted patents via the PTAB without having to wait for a lawsuit, or threat of one. Such knee-jerk legislative fixes will have unintended, and unfortunate consequences.

Time and time again throughout the legislative history post grant proceedings were explained as being a faster, low-cost alternative to litigating validity disputes in Federal District Court. That being the case, it would seem extremely odd that any petitioner could bring a post grant challenge to a patent when that petitioner would not have standing to sue to invalidate the patent in Federal District Court. However, the statute does say that a person other than the patent owner can file a petition to institute an inter partes review.

Gulbrandsen’s chief complaint with the U.S. system centers around the fact that it has become enormously easy to challenge issued patents once they have been granted. In fact, organizations in pursuit of acquired technology are leveraging the kill-rate at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), to negotiate lower licensing payments. Threats are made that patents will be challenged in Inter Partes review, “so that you amend the license and reduce the fees,” Gulbrandsen explained. “So, immediately you know that devalues the patent and devalues the license agreement that you’ve got.”

The immediate modification to the page limits for motions to amend is more in line with reality given the high burdens placed on patent owners. Even when patent owners sought additional pages, the norm was a three to five page extension. So getting ten extra pages is a welcome change. Changing the page limits, alone, is unlikely to impact the calculus underlying the strategic choice to amend. But when the choice is made to amend, patent owners will be better able to meet their burden.

In 2014 there were 1,070 fewer patent lawsuits filed than during 2013. Furthermore, the number of patent cases filed in 2014 was lower than the number of cases filed in 2012 by some 433 cases. Therefore, the stories of continued run away litigation seem to be greatly exaggerated. Given the dramatic decrease in patent litigation it seems entirely premature for Congress to be considering additional patent reform at this early stage.

Inter partes review proceedings unconstitutionally assign to an Article I executive branch tribunal matters reserved for Article III Judges that make up the Federal Judiciary. This is in violation of Separation of Powers principles, which is particularly problematic given that we are talking about property rights being stripped from patent owners by administrative law judges in a proceeding designed to be a district court alternative. These administrative tribunals also adjudicate patent validity without a jury, in violation of patentees’ Seventh Amendment rights.

There has been tremendous growth in the post-grant review system. But that growth is perhaps disproportionately driven by top filers. In both 2013 and 2014 almost a quarter of all IPRs were filed by the top ten petitioners that year. Among those top petitioners are many names you would expect to see including Apple, Samsung, Google, and Microsoft. However, having the system driven by a few major players is not necessarily beneficial, as it can leave behind smaller but still important actors.

The issue of proper due process is critical, according to Johnson, because “the PTAB is now both deciding on the institution of and the conduct of these IPRs and PGRs, and of course, they’re issuing the final decisions.” There is no doubt that given their outsized authority, the way the PTAB has evolved is reminiscent of a tribunal that acts as judge, jury, and executioner. At times I am also reminded of the old Westerns where a particularly vile villain would be apprehended. The crowd would scream for him to be hanged and some law abiding Sheriff would appear and say something like: “No! We are going to give this man a fair trial and then we are going to hang him!”

The STRONG Patents Act appears to be overwhelmingly favorable to innovators and patent owners. This legislation stands in stark contrast with the Innovation Act submitted in the House by Congressman Bob Goodlatte (D-Va) and shows a very different, alternative vision for the patent system.

Writing for the panel majority, Judge Dyk, who was joined by Judge Clevenger, explained that regardless of whether the USPTO properly should have instituted an IPR, the decision of the USPTO could not be reviewed or challenged even after a completed IPR proceeding. Further, the CAFC found that the broadest reasonable interpretation standard is appropriate in IPR. Judge Newman dissented.