Posts Tagged: "USPTO"

As we explained in Part I of this series yesterday, this December marks the end of a decade as well as 2019. In reflecting on the top 10 patent stories from 2010 to 2019, we acknowledge that there will undoubtedly be disagreements and mentioned yesterday that some big cases, like Mayo v. Prometheus and TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group…

This year, we wind down not only the year, but the decade. So, it is time to reflect upon the biggest patent related stories of the last ten years. As with any Top 10 list or ranking, there will undoubtedly be disagreements. For example, be forewarned, Mayo v. Prometheus did not make the list, but rest assured the ineptitude of the Supreme Court with respect to patent eligibility is well represented. Before jumping to the top 10, represented in chronological order, I want to mention several honorable mention stories that were close but didn’t make the list. First, although completely inconsequential, on June 22, 2015, in Kimble v. Marvel, the United States Supreme Court rejuvenated a 50-year-old rule that limits collecting patent royalties after a patent expires. In that decision the Supreme Court cited the importance of stare decisis, saying that there needs to be an overwhelmingly important rationale for disturbing well settled law, which is laugh-out-loud funny given how they did precisely that when they completely rewrote all of patent eligibility law with Bilski, Myriad, Mayo and Alice this decade. I’m sorry, but the Supreme Court citing stare decisis shows just how out of touch and ignorant they have collectively become.

Earlier this afternoon, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (DOJ), issued a Joint Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments (“2019 Joint Policy Statement”). This Joint Policy Statement explains that “[c]onsistent with the prevailing law… injunctive relief, reasonable…

On December 16, the U.S. Government, Arthrex, Inc., and Smith & Nephew, Inc. each submitted petitions for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc asking the full Federal Circuit to reconsider its October 31 ruling in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, Inc, which made Patent Trial and Appeal Board  (PTAB) judges “inferior officers” under the U.S. Appointments Clause, in order to skirt the problem that they had been unconstitutionally appointed under the America Invents Act. Many have criticized the quick-fix approach. The case stems from Arthrex, Inc.’s appeal from the final written decision of the PTAB holding certain claims of its U.S. Patent No. 9,179,907 unpatentable as anticipated. On appeal, Arthrex argued that the appointment of the PTAB’s Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) by the Secretary of Commerce violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Court somewhat surprisingly agreed and remedied the problem by simply “severing any ‘problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact,’” as outlined in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and Intercollegiate Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Board.

On November 8, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on the following issue: “Whether the addition by an online business of a generic top-level domain (“.com”) to an otherwise generic term can create a protectable trademark.” The issue stems from Booking.com B.V.’s attempt to register four versions of the trademark “booking.com” for, among other services, “making hotel reservations for others.” The applications, filed in 2011 and 2012, were refused by the USPTO on the grounds that “booking” and “.com” are generic terms which, when combined, nonetheless create a generic term which describes the travel agency and reservation services. In general, generic terms do not function as trade or service marks and cannot be registered.

In November, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion reversing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (the PTAB or the Board) decision that claim 8 of IPR Licensing Inc.’s (IPRL) wireless communications patent—U.S. Patent No. 8,380,244 (the ‘244 Patent)—was unpatentable as obvious. The Board’s obviousness finding as to claim 8 was erroneous as it relied on a prior art reference that IPRL could neither anticipate nor rebut. Furthermore, its finding was, for the second time, unsupported by substantial evidence. See In re IPR Licensing, Inc. (Fed Cir. Nov. 22, 2019) (Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto, Circuit Judges) (Opinion for the Court, O’Malley, Circuit Judge).

Drug innovators are providing much needed focus on rare diseases and, at the same time, leveraging early-stage rare disease results to facilitate down-stream market entry in broad-spectrum diseases. This paper provides a data-based demonstration of how early- and mid-stage pharmaceutical companies are using the Orphan Drug Program—in combination with pursuing patent portfolio protection—to secure investment and de-risk their platforms, thus lowering the financial barrier for expanding their product pipeline. The Orphan Drug Program—which is available for drugs that treat diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 patients annually in the United States—provides a number of incentives that can lower the barrier for successfully getting a drug to market. For instance, due in part to the reduced size of clinical trials associated with rare diseases, gaining regulatory approval for treating rare diseases is widely perceived to be simpler and more cost-effective than gaining approval for broad-spectrum diseases. Indeed, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows a number of alternative clinical trial designs to meet approval standards, and orphan drugs are also more likely to qualify for expedited review and approval procedures. On top of this, orphan drugs are eligible for a 25% tax credit for clinical trial expenses (which can be claimed up to 20 years after receipt of the designation, and can in some instances be applied to offset payroll taxes), eligibility for research grants, waiver of FDA user fees, and a seven-year post-approval market exclusivity.

Since the passing of the America Invents Act (AIA) and the implementation of the inter partes review (IPR) process, IPR has become a popular and important avenue for companies and individuals to challenge the validity of a patent in an administrative proceeding through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In the past five years, patent owners and challengers alike have presented new and sometimes novel challenges to the way the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), comprised of a panel of administrative law judges that review and decide cases, conduct trial proceedings, causing the PTAB to reevaluate and tweak the process along the way. Building on the scores of changes and interpretations the PTAB has made since the first AIA trial, the USPTO provided guidance in August 2018 and more recently in July 2019 summarizing and clarifying how the PTAB handles the IPR process.  On November 20, 2019, the Patent Office issued a consolidated Office Patent Trial Practice Guide (“Practice Guide”) incorporating the updates from August 2018 and July 2019, providing practitioners with a single streamlined blueprint for the overall review process.

The Supreme Court ruled in Peter v. NantKwest today that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) cannot recover the salaries of USPTO attorneys and paralegals who work on civil actions against the USPTO Director in the Eastern District of Virginia. The Court held that the language of Section 145 of the Patent Act, which says that applicants must pay all the expenses of the proceedings for a civil action, “does not overcome the American Rule’s presumption against fee shifting.” The USPTO argued that the Federal Circuit’s en banc 2018 decision holding “all expenses” does not include “expenses that the USPTO incurs when its employees, including attorneys, defend the agency in Section 145 litigation,” is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of  “expenses” and Section 145’s “history and purpose.”

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Monday in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies. The case asks the nation’s highest court whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d)—which states that decisions to institute inter partes review (IPR) proceedings shall not be appealable—permits appeals of PTAB institution decisions based upon 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)— which states that IPRs won’t be instituted if the patent owner served the petitioner with a complaint for patent infringement more than one year prior to the petition. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in August 2018 in a panel rehearing that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) had “committed legal error” in rendering its determination that an IPR petition challenging claims of Click-to-Call’s patent was not time-barred under Section 315(b). All 12 judges joined a footnote finding that the Section 315(b) time bar applies even when the earlier infringement action had been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Here is what those who have reviewed the transcript of Monday’s oral arguments had to say

On November 27, briefing concluded at the Supreme Court with the filing of Fossil’s respondent’s brief in Romag Fasteners, Inc., v. Fossil, Inc., et al. The final briefing sets the stage for the Court to hear the case on January 14, 2020. The Court will hopefully resolve a current Circuit split on the availability of disgorgement of profits as damages for trademark infringement. Currently, the First, Second, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and D.C. Circuits all require willful infringement before allowing disgorgement of an infringer’s profits (the First Circuit requires willfulness if the parties are not direct competitors and there is also some disagreement on where the Eighth Circuit falls on the issue). The Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuits all allow for disgorgement of profits without willful infringement. There has been a Circuit split for some time on this issue and the Supreme Court previously denied certiorari on similar cases but the Court is now set to resolve the split.

On Monday, December 9, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP. The case, which has gone through multiple name changes since its original appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), will ask the nation’s highest court whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), which states that decisions to institute inter partes review (IPR) proceedings shall not be appealable, permits appeals of PTAB institution decisions based upon 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Section 315(b) states that IPRs won’t be instituted if the patent owner served the petitioner with a complaint for patent infringement more than one year prior to the petition. To summarize the lower court proceedings in this case, the patent-at-issue was first asserted against Keen Inc. by Inforocket.com in 2001 in a case that was voluntarily dismissed. Click-to-Call acquired the patent and asserted it in 2012 against Ingenio, a company formed through a merger of Keen and Inforocket.com. Ingenio filed for an IPR petition and Click-to-Call challenged it based on the Section 315(b) time-bar and the former suit against Ingenio’s predecessor. The appeal reached the Supreme Court, where it was remanded in June 2016 in light of Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rendered a decision last August where all 12 Federal Circuit judges joined a footnote finding that the Section 315(b) time bar applies even when the earlier infringement action had been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments over copyright status of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated; the Federal Circuit remands Ericsson appeal to calculate release payment in patent license; Apple, Ford and others urge the USPTO to retain policy against injunctions on companies practicing SEPs; Huawei asks the Fifth Circuit to undo the FCC’s ban preventing it from supplying U.S. networks; Sergey Brin and Larry Page relinquish executive duties at Google; U.S. antitrust regulators explore Amazon’s cloud business; Washington politicians send letter to ALI over Copyright Restatement Effort concerns; and Qualcomm challenges Judge Koh’s class action certification at the Ninth Circuit.

Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) yesterday led a hearing of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property titled “Fraudulent Trademarks: How They Undermine the Trademark System and Harm American Consumers and Businesses.” The hearing included five witnesses from academia, private practice and the business community who testified on ways to declutter the U.S. trademark register, curb fraudulent trademark filings from China, and improve current mechanisms for enforcing trademarks in U.S. courts, among other topics. All agreed that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) August rule change requiring that foreign trademark applicants use U.S. counsel has likely only temporarily helped to ebb the flow of fraudulent filings from China, as bad actors are already adjusting their strategies.

Earlier this month, Mallinckrodt succeeded in its inter partes review (IPR) challenge against patent owner Biovie, Inc. (Biovie). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) final determination held that all claims of Biovie’s U.S. Patent No. 9,655,945 (the ‘945 patent) were unpatentable. The claims of Biovie’s ‘945 patent, directed to administering terlipressin to ascites (abnormal buildup of fluid in the abdomen) patients, were deemed anticipated and/or obvious over the prior art. During the IPR, Biovie attempted to use the recent Federal Circuit decision from OSI Pharmaceuticals v. Apotex (OSI) as a shield to patentability, but the shield was unsuccessful. As such, OSI is unlikely to be a cure-all for pharmaceutical method of treatment claims, in IPR proceedings or otherwise.