Posts Tagged: "PTAB"

Last week, Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) launched the long-awaited legislative campaign to revive the faltering U.S. innovation system, jointly introducing one bill to restore patent eligibility and another to boost patent reliability at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).  As the chair and ranking member of the Senate subcommittee on Intellectual Property, they are well-positioned to move these bipartisan bills forward. They got assists from Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI), who joined as original co-sponsors on the PREVAIL Act. While Coons and Tillis are well-placed, Durbin is even more so as he chairs the Judiciary Committee and serves as the number two leader of the majority party.

Public comments on the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practices continued to be posted this week, following the June 20 deadline. The USPTO is currently processing the 14,000+ comments, many of which are duplicative, and periodically publishing them online. The Office announced the ANPRM in April. Broadly, the ANPRM is part of a strategy from the USPTO to restructure patent proceedings in an effort to curb abusive actions. A host of stakeholders, including IP law firms, academics, and advocacy groups, have weighed in on the various proposals in the rulemaking package, offering a mix of praise and criticism. We have covered several in two previous posts; here are some more.

On the same day the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023 was introduced by Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), the two senators, along with their colleagues, Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI), introduced the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act today. The bill’s aim is to reform the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and would build upon Coons’ STRONGER Patents Act, introduced in 2019.

As of the morning of June 20, which was the deadline for public comment on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practices, the agency had received nearly 14,000 comments. On either side of the debate, the USPTO’s proposed “compelling merits” standard for circumventing Fintiv discretionary denials generated a great deal of feedback. The following comments from well-known thought leaders and companies encapsulate many of the issues that the USPTO must navigate as it contemplates changes to PTAB practices.

With the comment period set to close on June 20, more than 11,000 comments had been filed as of Friday, June 16, in response to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practices. Only 265 of those had been posted as of Friday, however. The ANPRM was…

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled in a precedential decision Wednesday that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) was correct to affirm a United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) examiner’s finding that the claims of U.S. Patent Application 15/131,442 were obvious in view of the prior art. The patent application was filed by John Couvaras and covers a method of reducing high blood pressure. The examiner rejected the claims as “not patentable because they naturally flowed from the claimed administration of the known antihypertensive agents,” specifically, a GABA-a agonist and an Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker (ARB). Couvaras conceded during prosecution that Couvaras that GABA-a agonists and ARBs “have been known as essential hypertension treatments for many, many decades” but appealed to the PTAB on the ground that the prostacyclin—a naturally occurring compound in the body that acts as an anticoagulant and vasodilator—increase was unexpected. Couvaras also argued that objective indicia overcame any existing prima facie case of obviousness.

Parus Holdings, Inc. was unsuccessful today in its bid to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) to reverse two Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions invalidating its patent claims for voice recognition technology. The CAFC in part said in a precedential decision authored by Judge Lourie that since Parus violated the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) regulation against arguments incorporated by reference, the PTAB did not have to consider evidence related to those arguments.

This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued two precedential decisions that provide additional guidance for those participating in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. These decisions are Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.a.r.l., cases 21-2357 and 21-2359. In total, they address six IPR proceedings challenging five patents related to various advances in guide catheter technology. The decisions raise a number of issues that suggest some tips for practice going forward.

In two separate precedential decisions authored by Chief Judge Moore today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) delivered victory for Teleflex Innovations, S.À.R.L. when it upheld Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rulings that found Medtronic, Inc. had failed to prove Teleflex’s patent claims for catheter technology used in interventional cardiology procedures unpatentable. The court issued a related decision last month, authored by Judge Lourie, also finding for Teleflex. Chief Judge Moore joined Lourie’s opinion, while Judge Dyk dissented.

Former Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Andrei Iancu, who is now a partner with Irell & Manella, told attendees of an Orrin G. Hatch Foundation webinar today that many of the proposals in the USPTO’s recent Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practices should be legislated by Congress. Particularly on issues that were statutorily prescribed, such as the standard patents are reviewed under at the PTAB versus the courts, the timing for filing petitions, and who can bring an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, Iancu said the better route to certainty is through Congress.

One of the most intriguing, and frankly long overdue, reforms the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) needs to consider is putting an end to the practice of for-profit entities like Unified Patents and RPX filing petitions challenging a patent. This practice has recently been called into question by the USPTO through an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) published in the Federal Register. The ANPRM, among many other things, raises the question whether the Office should discretionarily deny post grant proceedings filed by for-profit, non-competitive entities that in essence seek to shield actual real-parties-in-interest (RPIs) and privies from the statutory estoppel provisions contained within the America Invents Act (AIA). And two recent decisions from the Office of Patent Legal Administration (OPLA) provide even more hope that the USPTO will take a reasonable approach going forward when it comes to RPIs.

The U.S. Solicitor General recommended Tuesday that the United States Supreme Court deny Apple, Inc.’s petition asking the Court to clarify the proper application of estoppel in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The case stems from a February, 2022, decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in which the court issued a mixed precedential decision that affirmed, vacated, and remanded in part a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. That ruling related to a patent infringement suit filed by the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) against Broadcom Limited, Broadcom Corporation, and Avago Technologies (collectively “Broadcom) and Apple Inc. concerning Caltech’s U.S. Patent 7,116,710 (‘710 patent), U.S. Patent 7,421,032 (‘032 patent), and U.S. Patent 7,916,781 (‘781 patent).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled in a precedential decision today that Medtronic, Inc. failed to show the challenged claims of five patents covering catheter technology unpatentable. The CAFC specifically upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) finding that the primary prior art reference cited by Medtronic did not qualify as prior art under pre-America Invents Act (AIA) first-to-invent provisions. Judge Dyk dissented, arguing that the prior art reference had been shown to qualify as prior art, and thus could support a determination of anticipation or obviousness.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) yesterday made public a Sanctions Order against a patent owner that resulted in the cancellation of all 183 claims of five patents challenged in separate inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The PTAB order said that Longhorn Vaccines & Diagnostics “committed an egregious abuse of the PTAB process” by “selectively and improperly” withholding “material results that were inconsistent with its arguments and the patentability of both original and proposed substitute claims.”