Posts Tagged: "PTAB"

In a Per Curiam Order the Federal Circuit granted the petition for en banc rehearing and vacated the court’s three prior opinions in Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom Corp. The Federal Circuit will consider whether IPR institution decisions are reviewable in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee.

Pedersen doesn’t disagree that the patent system is biased against the patent owner in that “the patent owner has to run the gauntlet,” referring to needing to prevail in every forum 100% of the time. That means prevailing by convincing a patent examiner a patent should be awarded in the first place, prevailing against any post grant challenges, prevailing at the ITC and in the district court, and ultimately prevailing at the Federal Circuit. Pedersen acknowledged that with the system we have as a whole even if at ever step of the way there is a 90% chance that the patentee would win by the time you calculate the percent of “running the gauntlet” with the patent unscathed you are down to 50-50 at best.

The next Director of the Patent Office will have enormous power to turn things around. He or she can make the currently lopsided system fair to all stakeholders. Congress built the mechanism into the very Act of Congress that gave birth to the PTAB. The Director holds plenary discretion to deny any petition, for any reason… Beyond discretionary authority, the Act gives a wide berth for the Director to prescribe regulations. For example, 35 U.S.C. § 316(b) permits the Director to consider a number of factors when making those regulations: “the effect of any such regulation on the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings.” The Director “shall prescribe” a regulation “setting forth the standards for the showing of sufficient grounds to institute a review under section 314(a).” 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(2). Using the proper factors, the Director can certainly characterize a petition that threatens profound unfairness to a particular patent owner as one that impinges on “the integrity of the patent system,” and thus should be denied.

In what can be described only as an utterly ridiculous, intellectually insulting, and idiotic decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has done the truly absurd. In Ex parte Hiroyuki Itagaki the PTAB has ruled a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machine to be patent ineligible because it is an abstract idea, citing the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Alice v. CLS Bank for support.

Every time a new patent reform bill moves forward in Congress, the courts create case law eliminating the need to pass the bill. They legislate from the bench to protect their turf. The infringer lobby took advantage of this dynamic and pushed bills that would stimulate response from the courts… I think we should employ this well proven method of changing law. I know this is not how our government is supposed to work, but let’s be pragmatic. We cannot force an unwilling government to follow its own constitutional processes. So, we need to work with what is available.

Suffice it to say that 2016 has been an interesting year. The political climate is much different than one year ago amidst a growing tide of nationalism abroad and populism here in the United States. Throw in a massive migration crisis stemming from the Middle East, a slew of unexpected celebrity passings and the fact that the Chicago Cubs are lovable losers no more, and we’re about to wind down a year which seems nearly mythological in stature… As we turn the page onward to 2017, it’s a good time to take another look at some of the major trends shaping the IP and technology landscape in the United States and abroad. From increasing competition with an Asian powerhouse to the continuation of a misleading narrative about patent system abuses, the past year leaves us with many important narratives to consider for the year ahead.

In a December 22, 2016 decision, the Federal Circuit vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“The Board”) in two inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The Court reversed the Board’s decision that the claims at issue were unpatentable for anticipation and obviousness… The broadest reasonable interpretation of a patent claim does not extend to a legally incorrect interpretation. When the claim as a whole expressly excludes a particular result, a claim term cannot be interpreted so broadly as to encompass that result.

The high water mark for the PTAB came in June 2016 when the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee, which ruled that the broadest reasonable interpretations (BRI) standard was acceptable, and that IPR institution decisions were not appealable. After that, however, the tide turned decidedly with the Federal Circuit finding the PTAB acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and that they were blatantly using the wrong definition of a covered business method (CBM) patent to institute challenges on patents that were not financial business methods. The year ends with the Federal Circuit considering whether the PTAB’s refusal to allow motions to amend, despite the statute saying they are allowed, is within their discretion. The writing seems to be on the wall and 2016 seems to be ending with the PTAB in a very different place than it was at the start of the year.

To come up with the list below I’ve reviewed all of our patent articles, and have come up with these top 10 patent stories for 2016. They appear in chronological order as they happened throughout the year. Just missing the top 10 cut were the Supreme Court denying cert. in Sequenom and the USPTO being sued for Director Lee declaring a federal holiday. As interesting as those stories may have been, there was far more consequential patent news in 2016. Also missing the cut, but particularly interesting were the rather egregious and insulting response filed in an Office Action in September, and the embarrassing concurring decision by Judge Mayer in Intellectual Ventures. While the latter two were truly train wreck moments, they were fleeting. Judge Mayer has completely marginalized himself on the Federal Circuit with no one embracing his extreme and inaccurate reading of Alice, and that type of albeit cringe-worthy and unprofessional response to an Office Action happens very rarely.

When the America Invents Act (AIA) was being formulated, from about 2005 – 2011, nothing was more subject to change bill-to-bill than the proposed “1st look” and “2nd look” procedures for issued US patents. Should the U.S. have a regular opposition procedure, or should existing inter partes reexam just be tweaked? The AIA final result is the universally dis-liked post grant troika known as PGR, IPR, and CBM… For today I will confine my remarks (and associated fixes) to three truly bad ideas that in practice have played out as particularly egregious. More specifically: (1) the lack of standing required for inter partes review (IPR) challenges; (2) the lack of any real ability to amend claims during a post grant proceeding; and (3) the trivially low threshold (i.e., reasonable likelihood) that initiates an IPR.

Join a discussion between panelists Dave Kappas and Brad Pederson on Inter Partes Review, hosted by Gene Quinn of IPWatchdog.com, and sponsored by Article One Partners.

NuVasive owns a patent relating to spinal fusion implants. Medtronic petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) to institute an inter partes review challenging the validity of NuVasive’s patent over several references. The Board instituted the IPR and found the challenged claims obvious over a combination of references.

It is almost impossible to believe this report is the work product of the Obama Administration. The section on patents, which begins on page 134, reads like a cross between a Monty Python skit and a Soviet era, propaganda laden news report. Perhaps the Obama Administration is trying to rewrite history and brainwash the entire industry into believing that President Obama has been a tremendous defender of the U.S. patent system. Simply stated, the Obama Administration can write all they want about the importance of the patent system and how patents are critically important for innovation, but the reality is that the future of American innovation has been forfeited (or at least heavily mortgaged) by a calculated, intentional, and willful dismantling of the U.S. patent system for the benefit a handful of politically well connected companies that helped President Obama get elected and then re-elected.

Last week the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) instituted six separate inter partes reviews (IPRs) against patents owned by Allergan plc, which cover RESTASIS®. Each of the patents is listed in FDA’s Orange Book and are set to expire on August 27, 2024. Each of these patents, with the exception of the ‘191 patent, were previously challenged by Apotex Corporation in IPRs filed on June 4, 2015. The Apotex IPRs were settled on December 16, 2015, prior to any decision on institution.

One of the effects of this bill, were it enacted by Congress as currently written, would be to modify the enforcement activities of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Recent coverage of the bill by Bloomberg BNA notes that the proposed legislation would allow parties involved in a legal action to move the action out of SEC tribunal and into U.S. district court… As Bloomberg BNA’s coverage notes, SEC’s in-house tribunals have been criticized in recent months… While the Financial CHOICE Act itself doesn’t pose any direct impact to the U.S. patent system, it does highlight a similar issue playing out at the USPTO in recent years.