Patents Post Grant Blog

Added Rebuttal Opportunity of Limited Value to Patentees

When faced with a third party request for either ex parte patent (EXP) reexamination or inter partes patent (IPX) reexamination, a Patentee must sit helplessly by and await the determination of the USPTO to grant or deny the request. That is to say, the Patentee may not file any argumentation prior to the determination of the USPTO to institute a reexamination proceeding. For this reason, as well as the relatively low Substantial New Question (SNQ) threshold set for patent reexaminations (although no longer applicable to IPX), the grant rates for both EXP and IPX have hovered around 93%.

In order to address the absence of input from Patentees, and perhaps to a lesser extent the high grant rate, the new post grant proceedings of the America Invents Act (AIA) require higher thresholds (reasonable likelihood standard for Inter Partes Review (IPR) and more likely that not standard for Post Grant Review (PGR)). In addition, prior to ordering a trial in either of the new proceedings, Patentees will now have the option of submitting a preliminary response.

Yet, while on paper the filing of a preliminary response may seem to foster a more balanced system, in practice, such filings may be very rare. Read the rest of this entry »

Speedy, One Sided Estoppel to Force Judicial Deference

The estoppel provisions of Post Grant Review (PGR) and Inter Partes Review (IPR) are markedly different than those in existence today for Inter Partes Reexamination (IPX). Most importantly, PGR/IPR estoppel attaches upon a written determination of the PTAB, and a final, non-appealable decision of a court will not force the USPTO to vacate a parallel IPR/PGR proceeding. These estoppel features are expected to be a significant driver going forward in motions to stay parallel infringement actions.

Currently, IPX requires all appeals to be exhausted before estoppel can attach. In practice, this means that there is (roughly speaking) a 6 year journey through the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU), Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences (BPAI) and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). Starting September 16 2012, IPX will be replaced with IPR. Estoppel in an IPR proceeding will be effective within 12-18 months from the initiation of the proceeding. This is because IPR/PGR proceedings must be concluded in this time frame by statutory mandate.

The speed of IPR/PGR proceedings relative to court proceedings will certainly undermine plaintiff oppositions to a motion to stay. Often times, the strongest plaintiff argument in opposing a stay is that the significant USPTO delay will be prejudicial to the plaintiff.  However, perhaps more compelling will be the shifting of the prejudice argument to the side of the defendant. Read the rest of this entry »

Severe Page Limit Restrictions Likely to Force Parallel Filings

The page limit restrictions proposed by the USPTO for the new post grant proceedings of the America Invents Act (AIA) are quite severe. The currently proposed rules set a maximum 50 page limit for requests to initiate Inter Partes Review (IPR), and 70 pages for Post Grant Review (PGR). The page limits may be waived upon successful petition for additional pages, however, the Office has explained that such cases would be “exceptional.”

As if the page limits were not enough, the proposal also requires double spacing and a 14 point font (§42.24). These guidelines, taken together with the need to explain lengthy patent claims (up to 20 claims per request) and compare complex figures of the prior art, combine to present significant disincentives to the public. Simply stated, the “use it or lose it” nature of the statutory estoppel provisions of IPR and PGR are inconsistent with such restrictions. For example, to present more than a single proposed rejection in an IPR request directed to 10 claims or more would almost certainly exceed the 50 page limit.

As pointed out last week, the mean page count for an inter partes patent reexamination (IPX) is several hundred pages. IPR was formulated by Congress to replace IPX. As such, the Office’s administrative restrictions may very well frustrate the intent of Congress that these new post grant proceedings serve as a meaningful alternative to patent litigation (in which expert reports on validity and related pleadings may span thousands of pages).

An additional side effect of the proposed limits may be that filers present their proposed rejections across several requests filed in parallel. Read the rest of this entry »

Proposed Page Limits Based on Interference Model

As discussed previously, the fees proposed to initiate for Post Grant Review (PGR) and Inter Partes Review (IPR) may be too cost prohibitive for many filers. Yet, perhaps more troubling than the proposed fee structure is the extreme page limits proposed for these proceedings.

The proposed rules set a maximum 50 page limit for requests to initiate IPR, 70 pages for PGR (inclusive of claim charts). The proposed rule explains that federal courts often impose page limits, and perhaps more importantly that the ”Board’s experience” in patent interference leads the Office to believe that the current proposals are reasonable. The Office explains that the current page limit for prior art motions in a patent interference is 25 pages. Thus, the Office reasons that the doubling of this existing limit to 50 pages for IPR is quite reasonable.

The Office has borrowed heavily from patent interference practice in arriving at the proposed rules of procedural practice before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB); this makes sense. However, one size does not fit all with respect to contested proceedings. There are important distinctions between a patent interference and an IPR/PGR. That is to say, the problem with the Office’s reasoning is that validity challenges in patent interference do not encumber challengers with statutory estoppel that extends to the federal courts; nor are such validity based challenges the focus of a patent interference (i.e., priority dispute). Indeed, as the very ownership of the patent rights are in dispute in a patent interference, there may be strategic reasons for limiting validity challenges.

Rather than gauging the proposed page limits for IPR and PGR on patent interference practices, it would make much more sense for the USPTO to look to the current practice in inter partes patent reexamination (IPX); the very proceeding being replaced by IPR. So far in 2012, the mean page count for IPX requests is 262….a far cry from the 50 pages proposed by the USPTO. Read the rest of this entry »

Rules to Implement Post Grant Proceedings to Add New Layer of Patentee Estoppel

The estoppel impact of inter partes patent reexamination (IPX) has long been a concern for third party requesters. Should an IPX requester fail in its attempt to invalidate a patent before the USPTO, the estoppel provisions preclude a subsequent attempt to invalidate the same patent in a district court (at least based upon patents and printed publications).

For the new post grant proceedings of the America Invents Act (AIA) the same basic concept exists for requesters― one bite at the apple. However, the estoppel is triggered substantially earlier. In post grant proceedings under the AIA estoppel under 35 USC 315 attaches upon the issuance of a final written decision, which should occur around a year and a half from the filing of the petition for review in a typical case. In contrast, IPX estoppel attaches only upon issuance of the reexamination certificate, after exhaustion of all appeals to Article III courts.

Perhaps even more significantly, the proposed rules to implement the Post Grant Review and Inter Partes Review proceedings add a new layer of estoppel against Patentees.

The impact of this proposed change would be devastating for large patent filers.

Read the rest of this entry »

Romney, Gingrich and Santorum Named as Defendants in Patent Suit

This past Monday, EveryMD filed suit against the Republican presidential candidates for…well..using Facebook. The suit, captioned EveryMD v. Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich(C.D.CA) explains that U.S. Patent 7,644,122 is infringed by Facebook, and as business customers of Facebook receiving messages, that there is some type of liability on the part of the candidates. (complaint here)

The only independent claim of the ‘122 Patent recites:

A method for providing individual online presences for a each of a plurality of members of a group of members by an interface server computer comprising the steps of:

maintaining a database comprising information associated with each of said plurality of members at a database system connected to said interface server computer;

allotting individual URLS to each of said plurality of members by associating an individual URL with each individual member of said plurality of members in said database system;

associating an individual home page for each said individual member of said plurality of members with said individual URL allotted to said individual member in said database system, said individual home page comprising information from said database associated with said individual member; a first control for submitting a comment about said individual member; and a second control separate from said first control for sending a message other than said comment to said individual member;

receiving by said interface server an online request for said individual URL from a requesting source;

providing said individual home page by said interface server computer to said requesting source.

It seems likely that Facebook (in theory anyway) is the only direct infringer of the claim, curiously, no indirect infringement theory is pled relative to the defendants named in the complaint. Thus, the complaint is almost certainly to be dismissed.

It is also worth noting that Facebook sought reexamination of the ‘122 Patent, in 2010. Currently, all claims currently stand rejected at the USPTO. Oral argument at the Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences (BPAI) will likely occur in the next few months. (95/001,411). Thus, even if the case were to somehow go forward, it would almost certainly be stayed due to the late stage of the reexamination. So, aside from costing the candidates some nominal legal fees, this filing seems to be more of a public relations exercise.

Perhaps a more interesting (although academic) question is whether the ‘122 Patent, entitled “Method, Apparatus and Business System. . .” claims enough of a “technological invention” to avoid Post Grant Review eligibility under the new Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents.

MPF Claim Interpretation Required to Initiate New AIA Proceedings

In past posts I have pointed out that in analyzing requests for patent reexamination, Examiner’s are trained to apply a Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to patented claims. Unfortunately, over emphasis upon this standard ignores the fact that the scope of certain patent claims are defined by 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6^th paragraph, and may not be interpreted in this manner, namely—“means/step-plus-function” claims.

In my experience, the USPTO will almost always grant a reexamination request for MPF claims by applying an improper BRI analysis of the recited function alone. In fact, I have never seen a Request denied for failure to provide the necessary structural mapping between the specification and MPF claims. Of course, such a mapping is expressly required when appealing a rejection to the Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences (BPAI).

As a result, Patentees will often argue for proper claim interpretation under 112 6th paragraph throughout the reexamination, only convincing the Board as to the proper interpretation of the MPF claims years later. Likewise, by not forcing the issue at the time of the Request, Patentees may only resort to arguing 112 6th at the appeal stage (after failing to distinguish art under the BRI standard); either situation is a waste of Office resources. One such case of a Patentee changing course was illustrated yesterday in Ex Parte EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC. Read the rest of this entry »

Modern Patent Troll Business Model Insulated from New Post Grant Challenges

Roughly two weeks ago the USPTO published the last of the Post Grant related rule packages established by the America Invents Act (AIA). The rule packages propose hefty filing fees for both Post Grant Review (PGR) and Inter Partes Review (IPR), $35,800 and $27,200 respectively. These filing fees attempt to capture the aggregate cost of conducting these proceedings as estimated by the Agency. Although the filing fee price levels were largely expected by the public, especially after the proposed increase in the filing fee for ex parte patent reexamination, the accompanying claim-count surcharge was not. Read the rest of this entry »

Post Grant Timeline Released by USPTO

While the USPTO will publish the last of the Post Grant related rule packages today, the Federal Register notices yesterday provided the rules of practice before of the new Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB).

Practice Guide For Proposed Trial Rules (here)

Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board and Judicial Review of Patent Trail and Appeal Board Decisions (here)

The USPTO provided the graphical illustration of the IPR/PGR timeline reproduced below:

As illustrated in the timeline, a maximum of 12 months is allocated for an IPR/PGR proceeding. Of course, the 12 month timeline may be extended 6 months if the USPTO can show cause. Oddly, the Patent Owner is expected to submit amendments prior to the close of discovery. So, for example, if the Patent Owner is seeking discovery as to secondary indicia of non-obviousness to avoid amendment, by the time that evidence is secured (or not) the opportunity to amend the claims may be lost as a matter of right.

Click to Enlarge

PTAB & Post Grant Proceedings Detailed by USPTO

In advance of the printing in the Federal Register later this week, the USPTO has released its proposed rules for the contested case provisions, i.e., inter partes review, post grant review, the transitional program for covered business methods, and derivation. The documents appearing below are not the official Federal Register publications of those proposed rules. The official Federal Register publications will follow later this week on February 9 and 10, 2012. Publication of the proposed rules in the Federal Register will begin the sixty-day public comment period for the proposed rules.

Links to the various rule sets are found below:

Proposed Rules for Trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (aka Proposed Umbrella Rules)

Practice Guide for Proposed Trial Rules

Proposed Rules for Post Grant Review

Proposed Rules for Inter Partes Review

Proposed Rules for the Transitional Program for Covered Business Methods

Proposed Rules for the Definition of Technological Invention

Proposed Rules for Derivation

Quick facts are as follows; Read the rest of this entry »