Patents Post Grant Blog

Increased Speed and Heightened Threshold Showing for New PTAB Proceedings Drive Stays

The primary business distinctions between the USPTO Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings and traditional court based patent invalidity proceedings are the vast improvements in cost, predictability, effectiveness, and speed of PTAB proceedings— but it is the speed and effectiveness that is changing the perspective of the judiciary on staying litigation pending USPTO proceedings.

As most are aware, the old patent reexamination system, at least on the inter partes side, has been replaced by IPR. IPR must be concluded by statute within 12-18 months, a marked improvement over the (roughly speaking) previous 6+year path through the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU), Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences (BPAI) and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). These changes are being quickly recognized by courts, several of which have agreed to halt litigation proceedings upon the mere filing of an IPR (months in advance of an Order to grant the IPR petitions).

Previously, when an inter partes patent reexamination was the basis for the motion to stay the court proceeding, the strongest plaintiff arguments in opposition were that the significant USPTO delay would prove prejudicial to the plaintiff. Indeed, some of the cases stayed in the early days of inter partes reexamination are only now being reopened, 8 years later.  Read the rest of this entry »

Liberal Stay Policy Thwarts Patent Suits in New Jersey

Non-practicing entities or “patent trolls” are generally those plaintiffs that seek to enforce patent rights against an industry in which they themselves do not compete. Stated another way, an NPE’s only business is patent litigation.

Often times the patents an NPE is enforcing were purchased from a traditional technology company for the sole purpose of exacting royalties from the relevant industry. In the hands of an NPE, which has no technological industry subject to a patent counter suit by their industry targets, the NPE patents become especially powerful weapons of economic coercion.

Over the last decade, law firms have recognized the efficacy of NPE litigation campaigns and have signed on in great numbers to get a piece of the action. Typically, an NPE will team up with a law firm that will conduct the campaign on their behalf in exchange for a contingent fee arrangement. (i.e., percentage of the collected settlements). This profiteerring business model has lead to a significant proliferation of patent infringement suits.

Just not in New Jersey. Read the rest of this entry »

AIA Cited by CAFC  as Remedying Known Patent Reexamination Deficiency

As predicted based upon the earlier oral argument, the Federal Circuit closed the door on the potential for discovery in inter partes patent reexamination in Abbott Laboratories v. Cordis Corp. (here) Specifically, the CAFC held that parties to such a patent reexamination proceeding cannot subpoena documents or testimony before the USPTO under 35 U.S.C. § 24.

Interestingly, as was the case earlier in Lingamfelter v. Kappos, the Court utilized the developments of the recent AIA legislation as a lens by which to view the earlier inter partes reexamination statutes, contrasting the earlier legislative intent as:

Congress’s most recent amendment to the Patent Act further demonstrates that Congress intended for subpoenas under section 24 to be made available in those proceedings in which depositions are relied upon by the PTO. In 2011, Congress replaced inter partes reexamination with a new proceeding called inter partes review.  . . . The purpose of this reform was to “convert[] inter partes reexamination from an examinational to an adjudicative proceeding,” and one of its touted “improvements” over the former proceeding is to allow the limited use of depositions.  . . . In particular, Congress provided for depositions of affiants in the proceeding, and also authorized parties to “seek such discovery as the Patent Office determines is otherwise necessary in the interest of justice.”  . . . In the course of implementing these mandates, the PTO has recognized that the AIA authorizes parties to seek section 24 subpoenas in the new proceedings.

Increased Speed and Heightened Threshold Showing for New PTAB Proceedings Drive Stays

The primary business distinctions between the USPTO Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings and traditional court based patent invalidity proceedings are the vast improvements in cost, predictability, effectiveness, and speed of PTAB proceedings— but it is the speed and effectiveness that is changing the perspective of the judiciary on staying litigation pending USPTO proceedings.

As most are aware, the old patent reexamination system, at least on the inter partes side, has been replaced by IPR. IPR must be concluded by statute within 12-18 months, a marked improvement over the (roughly speaking) previous 6 year path through the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU), Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences (BPAI) and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). These changes are being quickly recognized by courts, several of which have agreed to halt litigation proceedings upon the mere filing of an IPR (months in advance of an Order to grant the IPR petitions).

Previously, when a patent reexamination was the basis for the motion to stay the court proceeding, the strongest plaintiff arguments in opposition were: (1) the significant USPTO delay would prove prejudicial to the plaintiff; and (2) the SNQ standard of patent reexamination led to a 97% grant rate—both of these arguments are now falling very flat. Read the rest of this entry »

Decrease in Patent Reexamination Docket Leads to Faster Orders

Back on September 16, 2012, the America Invents Act (AIA) replaced the old inter partes patent reexamination system with a new proceeding, known as Inter Partes Review (IPR). Since petitions for IPR are not handled by patent examiners, but instead, the judges of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB), the USPTO’s Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) has experienced a significant cut to their incoming workflow. This change in workflow, coupled with the fact that requests for ex parte reexamination are also off by roughly 50% of pre-AIA filing rates, has resulted in an apparent benefit for patent challengers.

Ex parte patent reexamination requests are being processed faster.

Read the rest of this entry »

In recent months there has been much discussion of the USPTO’s decision to open satellite offices in Dallas-Fort Worth, Denver, and Silicon Valley. The Detroit office opened in July 2012 and hosts about fifty examiners and ten administrative patent judges (APJs). A location has been selected for the Dallas-Fort Worth office and the site selection process is underway for the Silicon Valley Office.

As currently managed, the satellite offices are designed to process patent applications, i.e., ex parte prosecution and appeals therefrom. Post grant patent proceedings, save perhaps some patent reissue proceedings, will remain at the USPTO main campus in Alexandria Virginia. That is, the new patentability trials of the America Invents Act (AIA), patent reexamination, supplemental examination and derivation proceedings will be processed at the main campus in Alexandria. Patent reexamination and supplemental examination proceedings are handled at the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) and the Trial Section of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) handle contested proceedings of the AIA.  There do not appear to be any current plans to migrate Contested Proceedings or CRU functionality to satellite offices.

Ex Parte Patent Reexamination Filings Fall by 50% After AIA

Prior to September 16, 2012, ex parte patent reexamination was the only USPTO option for challenging the validity of patents that issued from patent applications filed before November 29, 1999. This is because the inter partes patent reexamination statutes excluded those patents that issued from applications of the pre-1999 vintage. So, for those patent challengers hoping to take advantage of the lower cost USPTO proceeding as an alternative to patent litigation, ex parte patent reexamination was the only show in town— albeit, statistically speaking, a less than ideal option for patent challengers.

Further, ex parte patent reexamination provided the only manner by which a patent challenger could remain anonymous. This feature was especially important for those challengers hoping to test the mettle of an issued patent without inviting a retaliatory law suit from the Patentee.

Of course, the post grant patent world changed forever on September 16th 2012. On this date inter partes patent reexamination was discontinued in favor of the more robust Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding. Unlike its predecessor proceeding, IPR proceedings may be used to challenge any patent, regardless of vintage. In addition to this important expansion in inter partes applicability, the USPTO fee to request an ex parte patent reexamination soared from $2520 to $17,750.

So, with the availability of the more robust IPR option, and the attendant price increase to ex parte reexamination, is there still value in pursuing an ex parte patent reexamination proceeding?

Read the rest of this entry »

Over the years, the PTAB has shed it’s “super-examiner” role to more of that of an umpire— calling balls and strikes. That is to say, the PTAB has drifted toward a relatively narrower view of the scope of issues it will substantively review on appeal, perhaps as a matter of necessity in dealing with the crushing weight of the growing appeal backlog.

Yesterday, in Rexnord Industries v. Kappos (2011-1434), the Federal Circuit shifted the focus of the PTAB away from their recent umpire-like practices toward a more traditional judicial review model.

The Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB for failing to consider all theories raised by an appellee in support of an examiner’s decision in an inter partes patent reexamination irrespective of whether the theory or ground was adopted by the examiner. Rexnord, the third party requester, had proposed rejections based on a combination of references with the added rationale that a certain claimed feature – a gap of less than 10 mm – was merely an obvious design choice. The examiner rejected the claims on the proposed combination of references but did not adopt the design choice theory, instead, opting to substitute his own reasoning. Namely, the examiner’s rejection was premised on an interpretation of the claims which permitted the gap to be 0 mm, or nonexistent.

The PTAB reversed the examiner but refused to consider Rexnord’s “obvious design choice” argument as an alternative basis for affirming the examiner. The PTAB reasoned that its role on appeal  Read the rest of this entry »

USPTO Exercises Fee Setting Authority to Decrease Patent Reexamination and Post Grant  Trial Fees

Based upon the fee setting authority provided in Section 10 of the America Invents Act (AIA), the USPTO has now issued final rules to reduce fees for patent reexamination and post grant proceedings of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB). The new fees are discounted from existing rates, and take effect on March 19, 2013. (final rules here)

The fees for PTAB proceedings will be broken up into petition and trial phases. The apportionment enables the office to more precisely calibrate costs so that refunds may be provided, where appropriate. The petition portion of the fees correspond to the cost of considering the petition filing. The trial portion of the fees corresponds to the cost of conducting the trial.

A more detailed explanation of the fee changes is provided below. Read the rest of this entry »

Failure to Focus Means Plus Function Debate in Patent Reexamination

Last week in In re Avid Identification Systems Inc., the CAFC affirmed the USPTO’s rejection of certain claims of U.S. Patent 5,499,017 in ex parte patent reexamination. Of particular note in the appeal was the proper construction of  ”means for storing.” The Patentee argued that the “means for storing” language invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112 6th paragraph (now known as 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)), and as such, required particular structure of the specification. The USPTO took the position that, since this claim construction position was not seasonably raised in the briefing to the PTAB, nor was the required claim mapping presented in the opening brief as required by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(v), that the argument was waived for purposes of appeal.

In a stinging dissent, Judge Clevenger found the PTAB’s practice to be “random” as it relates to the proper examination of means-plus-function (MPF) claims. He was particularly disappointed that the PTO chose to “hide behind” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(v), labeling such behavior a public detriment. (decision here)

The fact pattern in Avid is troubling on many levels. Not only is such a practice a public detriment as to predictability, but interpreting MPF claims to have a broader scope is arguably an ultra vires action in the context of patent reexamination. And, above all else, a simple rule change would avoid most such issues from reaching the appellate level. Read the rest of this entry »