Advancing Inter Partes Reexaminations Cited to CAFC
When faced with the assertion of a patent of dubious validity, prospective defendants increasingly resort to patent patent reexamination. Once a suit is filed, the opportunity to obtain a stay of an ongoing district court infringement action pending a parallel patent reexamination is a major benefit of the USPTO proceeding. Courts have the inherent power to manage their dockets, including the authority to stay patent infringement litigation pending the conclusion of a USPTO patent reexamination. A stay of the court proceeding enables defendants to halt, or altogether avoid cost prohibitive litigation discovery, which can be rather lengthy and painful.
For this reason, patent reexamination parallel to a district court is often initiated in an attempt to stay the more cost prohibitive court proceeding. In deciding whether or not to stay the court proceeding the courts look to many factors. (See factor based analysis here)
If the Court proceeding is not stayed, both proceeding will proceed on parallel tracks. Should the Court proceeding continue on to the CAFC, can you try to persuade the appellate court to stay the proceeding pending the outcome of the reexamination? Read the rest of this entry »
Disclaimer Results in Reversal of $56 Million Dollar Damage Award
As previously discussed, the CAFC has agreed to reconsider Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon, Inc. (here) en banc. The Court will reconsider whether or not intervening rights are created for a claim that is not literally amended in a post grant proceeding by a change in verbiage, but instead, by operation of prosecution disclaimer on the part of the Patentee. (earlier post here)
Interestingly, last week the Court considered a somewhat similar circumstance of claims that were confirmed in patent reexamination without amendment in Krippelz v. Ford Motor Company (here). Read the rest of this entry »
Proposed Rule Package to Significantly Hike Fees
As mentioned on Monday, the proposed rule package for supplemental examination is expected this week; in fact, it will publish tomorrow. In addition to the expected rule package on the new supplemental examination proceeding, the USPTO has included proposed revisions to existing patent reexamination fees.
The existing fee for requesting ex parte patent reexamination is $2520. The Notice proposes to raise this fee, to account for actual agency costs for conducting the proceeding, to a whopping $17,750. The notice also raises the fees for filing a petition (using the same justification) in either ex parte or inter partes patent reexamination to $1932. This new fee will apply to any petition filed under Rules 181,182, or 183. (The petition fee increase excludes extensions of time and some other minor petitions). Current fees are on the order of $200-$400. It may be that the increase in petition fees will help reign in the abusive practices currently plaguing the Office.
Certainly the Office should raise reexamination fees as they are presently quite low, but the jump to the proposed levels, especially as it relates to the hefty request fees, is unlikely to be received very favorably by the public. Read the rest of this entry »
Willfullness Determination Opens Door to Prejudice
One purpose for introducing evidence of an ongoing patent reexamination in a parallel litigation is to avoid a post filing (i.e., complaint) willfulness determination. The existence of an ongoing patent reexamination may be admitted to demonstrate that the accused infringer was not objectively reckless in its actions irrespective of its prior knowledge of the asserted patent.
Some courts have found that reexamination evidence defeats a finding of willfulness, these courts typically examine the status of the claims in the reexamination proceeding at the time of the willfulness determination, finding that the weight of the reexamination evidence depends on whether the reexamination proceedings are complete and whether the patent claims have undergone substantive changes in reexamination. When seeking introduction of such evidence, depending upon the court, the stage of the parallel litigation (Summary Judgment, JMOL, Pre-Trial Motions) may determine whether or not it is admissible.
In recent years, courts have been reluctant to admit evidence of an ongoing patent reexamiantion at trial. This is because the presumption of validity may be undermined by communicating to the factfinder(s) that the USPTO has changed their mind. This trend is especially prominent in plantiff forums such as Texas. Read the rest of this entry »
Ex Parte Patent Reexamination Practices Adjusted to Account for Estoppel
The new estoppel provisions of Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post Grant Review (PGR) differ from the previous estoppel provisions of inter partes patent reexamination in that they not only prevent a subsequent request for IPR/PGR from the same requester (or privies) on issues that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the first proceeding, but prevent the filing or maintenance of any other “office proceeding.”
By definition a Post Grant Review (PGR) can only be conducted prior to an IPR. This is because an IPR can only be filed once the 9 month PGR window has ended, or after any ongoing PGR concludes. As such, the primary office proceeding that can be requested, or maintained in this regard (i.e., after IPR/PGR estoppel attaches) is ex parte patent reexamination (EXP).
As pointed out previously, in order to properly estop an ongoing EXP proceeding or filing, the Office must implement a system to track EXP filings with respect to the real party in interest. This tracking is complicated by the fact that many EXP proceedings are filed anonymously. Last Thursday, the USPTO issued their plan. Read the rest of this entry »
Parallel Litigation Settles, Now What?
With the vast majority of patent reexaminations now being conducted concurrent to a district court or ITC proceeding, a common question of Patentees is “what becomes of the patent reexamination once the litigation settles?”
In the case of ex parte patent reexamination, the answer is simple: the reexamination continues unaffected. Indeed, as demonstrated a few weeks back (In Re Construction Equipment, CAFC (2011)), the ultimate outcome of the ex parte reexamination can even effectively reverse an earlier decision of the CAFC.
On the other hand, if the pending reexamination is an inter partes patent reexamination (IPX), the answer will depend on the nature of the terms of the settlement agreement. In a best case scenario for Patentee, the IPX proceeding may be vacated altogether by operation of estoppel. Of course, to trigger IPX estoppel, the settling defendant/requester must agree to a consent consent judgement in the district court (not effective in the ITC as estoppel does not apply) that they failed to prove invalidity. In most cases, defendants are loathe to publicly admit defeat. Still, unwary Patentes may be walking away from significant opportunity if just swinging for the fences. Read the rest of this entry »
Top Stories of 2011
2011 was perhaps the most significant year to date in terms of post grant patent practice. The perennial legislative effort generally known as “patent reform” finally bore fruit as the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA); patent reexamination filings in 2011 reached an all time high; patent reissue practice was explored and clarified by the CAFC; and patent litigation parallel with patent reexamination continues to expand as a well established strategic practice.
As to the America Invents Act, several entirely new post grant patent proceedings have now been enacted into law (effective September 16, 2012). A summary of these proceedings, and discussions of their expected impact are linked below (and throughout the blog).
Post Grant Review
Inter Partes Review
Supplemental Examination
Derivation
Transitional Business Method Patent Challenge
The USPTO is scheduled to Read the rest of this entry »
BPAI Reverses Rejections on CAFC Claim Construction
The seemingly never ending saga of the NTP patent reexaminations took yet another interesting turn yesterday. The BPAI issued revised decisions on remand that reversed the earlier rejections of some of the NTP claims. As a reminder, the reexamination of the NTP patents began during the litigation between NTP v. RIM. The reexaminations continued at the USPTO in parallel with the then ongoing, and now infamous, litigation. However, the co-pending litigation continued on to the settlement, narrowly avoiding a disruption of RIM’s business in the U.S via court imposed injunction.
Now, some 6+ years later, the reexaminations may be close to a conclusion (absent further appeal by NTP).
The revised decisions stem from the CAFC remand on claim construction issues relating to the definitions of “electronic mail” or “electronic mail message.” As a result of the revised construction, NTP has manged to claw back some of their previously rejected claims. Read the rest of this entry »
Determination of Non-Obviousness by USPTO Disregarded by Court
Last week’s CAFC decision in In re Construction Equipment decided the validity of U.S. Patent 5,234,564…..again. In the first appeal, decided in 2001, the CAFC upheld the validity determination of the District Court. In the second appeal, decided last week, the CAFC considered an appeal from the USPTO rejecting the claims of the ‘564 patent in ex parte patent reexamination. In their second decision, the CAFC found the ‘564 Patent invalid in light of some of the very same prior art references at issue in the first appeal.
In her dissent Judge Newman questioned the constitutionality of the USPTO looking over the shoulder of the CAFC.
In a case of “turnabout is fair play,” last Friday, a United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut considered, and disregarded, the USPTO’s reexamination analysis of the same prior art in Jacobs Vehicle Equipment Co. v. Pacific Diesel Brake Co. et al. (D.Conn). Read the rest of this entry »
CAFC Appeal Result Undone 11 Years Later
Patent reexamination is often initiated in parallel with an ongoing infringement litigation. In the case of a parallel inter partes proceeding (IPX), the first of the proceedings to conclude (litigation or IPX) controls the outcome of the other by operation of statutory estoppel. As such, a final holding in the parallel court proceeding will end an ongoing IPX. Moreover, the losing party would be precluded from seeking IPX at a later date.
On the other hand, ex parte patent reexamination (EXP) has no such statutory “shut off valve.” Thus, even a party that was bound by IPX estoppel could file a request for ex parte patent reexamination. In this way, the infringer could attempt to “undo” the effect of the earlier, final, court judgement by invalidating the patent via the EXP filing.
As I explained this past August, the CAFC questioned this “do-over” practice during the oral argument of In re Construction Equipment. Last week the CAFC issued a decision in this case. In the process, the CAFC disturbed the holding of their first decision, issued some 10 years earlier. Read the rest of this entry »
English
