Posts Tagged: "post grant procedures"

It was another surprisingly light week in patent filings, compared at least with recent memory—just 29 new suits and 17 new filings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), all inter partes reviews (IPRs). The filings include a few challenges against patents asserted by the Fortress-funded Neo Wireless and Netlist, as well as a slew of filings by Apple against Mullin Industries, LLC. After a week’s respite there were five new IP Edge suits—not as many as usual, but still enough to represent almost a fifth of all suits filed this week.

Last week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decided to institute inter partes review (IPR) in Code200, UAB v. Bright Data, Ltd., IPR2022-00861, following a sua sponte Director Review decision ordering the Board to reconsider its original ruling denying institution. USPTO Director Kathi Vidal issued a precedential sua sponte Director Review Decision in the case in August, clarifying the application of Gen. Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) when denying decisions to institute IPRs.

This week saw 26 Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) filings (all inter partes reviews [IPRs]) and just 28 new district court complaints—and notably and unusually, no new IP Edge filings. Most of the filings were related to three entities, the now-sprawling Bell Semiconductor campaign added a slew of new defendants, and Cedar Lane and Buffalo Patents, both campaigns comprised entirely of old Intellectual Ventures (IV) patents (both almost certainly transferred under IV’s late-stage low-cost time-limited backend deal structure). There was one (non-Fintiv) denial at the Board and a few IV patents were challenged directly by Honda; some pharmaceutical challenges were filed, but otherwise, it was a relatively quiet week in new filings, particularly in the district court (it’s the first week in as long as I can remember when there didn’t appear to be a single IP Edge filing, which certainly contributes to the lull).

Earlier this week, IPWatchdog hosted a webinar sponsored by the Innovation Alliance, now available to view for free here, in which panelists drew a roadmap for fixing the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Ultimately, they said: 1) thoughtfully exercise discretion to deny the inter partes review (IPR) petitions to ensure quiet title, 2) apply the clear and convincing standard of proof for invalidity to match the district court standard, 3) change the joinder rule so that time-barred parties aren’t allowed to join IPRs, 4) create a standing requirement to bring IPRs to end gaming by uninterested third-parties and 5) increase transparency at the PTAB— for example, with respect to panel changes and transfers. The participants who delivered these solutions were Dr. Marian Underweiser, an Intellectual Property Professional and former IBM Executive, Hon. Kathleen O’Malley (CAFC, ret.), currently Of Counsel with Irell & Manella, Jayson Sohi, the Director of IP Strategy at Netlist, and Gene Quinn, President & CEO of IPWatchdog, Inc.

On October 3, the U.S. Supreme Court entered an order list in which it denied petitions for writ of certiorari in several cases involving questions under U.S. patent law. In rejecting these appeals, the Supreme Court declined to clarify aspects of the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, the patent eligibility standard under the Court’s two-step framework for 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject matter eligibility, and whether institution decisions at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) violate constitutional due process. The Supreme Court did, however, invite the U.S. Solicitor General to file a brief on Teva’s petition challenging the Federal Circuit’s induced infringement ruling over Teva’s “skinny label,” and the Court granted cert in a case that questions whether online platforms face liability for aiding and abetting terrorist acts if they offer services that are used by terrorist organizations.

There is a surge of protests in the air and increased cries of “structural bias” concerning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) granting of patent reviews, fueled by the July report issued by the U.S. Government and Accountability Office (GAO) revealing that 75% of surveyed PTAB judges said that control by office directors and Board management affected their autonomy.

In a much-anticipated decision, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal today issued a precedential Director review ruling holding that inter partes review (IPR) petitioner OpenSky Industries, LLC abused the IPR process in its conduct with patent owner, Technology LLC, and sanctioning OpenSky by excluding it from the IPR proceedings and “temporarily elevating Intel to the lead petitioner.” Vidal’s 52-page decision further remands the case to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to decide whether it merits institution “based only on the record before the Board prior to institution.” The decision explains that “OpenSky, through its counsel, abused the IPR process by filing this IPR in an attempt to extract payment from VLSI and joined Petitioner Intel, and expressed a willingness to abuse the process in order to extract the payment.”

District court and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) filings were both down substantially this week, with 57 and 15, respectively, and 91 district court terminations. The drop-off of patent filings in the Western District of Texas has perhaps not been as pronounced as might be expected, though obviously most of those cases are being assigned to other judges there, or continuations of defendants being added to suits already within the Waco court’s jurisdiction. The Traxcell campaign continued to spiral, with many new defendants added; ditto the Hilco capital-led Bell Semiconductor case, which added an even more diverse list of defendants to the already-long roster. Otherwise most suits this week, with the exception of a few highlighted below, are related to earlier-filed suits.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) yesterday issued a precedential decision, in part holding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to “fully and particularly set out the bases upon which it reached its decision” to render obvious certain claims of Provisur Technologies’ patent. The CAFC also said the Board erred in its analysis finding two of the claims not unpatentable. The opinion was authored by Judge Prost. The case relates to claims 1-14 of Provisur’s U.S. Patent No. 6,997,089 for “a method and system for ‘classifying slices or a portion cut from a food product according to an optical image of the slice,’” according to the CAFC opinion. The PTAB held that Weber, Inc. had proved unpatentable as obvious claims 1–10, 13, and 14 but not claims 11 or 12. Provisur appealed the unpatentability determinations and Weber cross-appealed the finding that claims 11 and 12 were not unpatentable.

The inventor of a novel jump rope system (the Revolution Rope), Molly Metz, is petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court through her company, Jump Rope Systems, LLC, to seek clarification of the collateral estoppel doctrine as applied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) to bar a patent infringement suit in district court where the CAFC has affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding of unpatentability. Jump Rope Systems is arguing that the CAFC’s decision in  XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, L.C. (2018) conflicts with the Supreme Court decisions in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., 575 U.S. 138 (2015); Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 571 U.S. 191 (2014); and Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279 (1991).

Twenty-three inter partes reviews (IPRs) and no post grant reviews were filed this week; plaintiffs filed an average-ish 79 new district court filings, though many were associated with older campaigns. The Daedalus Prime subsidiary asserting Intel patents has filed suits against Samsung and TSMC; Volkswagen filed a number of IPRs against Fortress-backed Neo Wireless. There were, again, no discretionary denials at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), though certainly merits-based denials continue apace; many challenges against Magnetar entity Scramoge have been instituted; and Red Hat filed a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement against litigation-funded Valtrus [Centerbridge Capital, run by Key Patent Innovations] on patents not yet asserted in district court, just as Google began challenging a different set of patents asserted against just them.

In June of this year, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal replied to a late April request by Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) for answers to a number of questions surrounding abuse of the inter partes review (IPR) system, explaining that she was working on the problem. Now, Vidal has sent a follow-up letter providing more detail on two of the questions raised in the letter, specifically with respect to the USTPO’s authority to issue sanctions for bad faith petitions. In addition to providing statistics on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s use of sanctions since the America Invents Act (AIA) was passed, Vidal also said she plans to seek stakeholder input to explore further options for addressing misconduct.

Following a remand on Appointments Clause issues under United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling finding all challenged claims of Polaris Innovations Limited’s patents unpatentable and denying Polaris’ motions to terminate. The decision is precedential and authored by Judge Stoll. Polaris’ U.S. Patent Nos. 6,532,505 and 7,405,993 are directed to computer memory. In May 2016, Polaris filed suit against NVIDIA Corporation for infringement of certain claims of the two patents. NVIDIA then filed inter partes review (IPR) petitions challenging some claims as invalid. A final written decision on the petition involving the ‘993 patent issued on December 19, 2018, finding all challenged claims unpatentable. A final written decision on the petition involving the ‘505 patent issued on December 4, 2018, likewise finding all challenged claims unpatentable.

Inventor organization US Inventor (USI) and Ron Katznelson—the author of a widely cited study detailing the link between Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) judges’ decisions and their compensation—have filed separate amicus briefs supporting New Vision Gaming and Development, Inc. in its most recent appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). New Vision is arguing that America Invents Act (AIA) trials violate the Due Process Clause and that the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report documenting how U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and PTAB management control influences Administrative Patent Judges’ (APJ) decision making bolsters its previous arguments and warrants a new appeal. While USI’s brief expands upon this argument, Katznelson’s provides both old and new data that he says proves a “structural bias” exists.

On September 6, New Vision Gaming and Development Inc. (New Vision) filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on return from remand after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denied its request for Director Review. The case relates to a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision canceling all claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,325,806 (‘806 patent) and was previously appealed to the CAFC. But since the last appeal, a report demonstrating evidence that PTAB judges are influenced by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) leadership gives new weight to New Vision’s arguments, says the brief.