Patents Post Grant Blog

42% of 2007 Cases Remain Stayed

Patent reexamination parallel to a district court/ITC litigation is often initiated in an attempt to stay the more cost prohibitive court proceeding. Court’s will stay the ongoing litigation pending the patent reexamination outcome in the interests of judicial economy.

But, what happens to these cases? Are they ultimately dismissed altogether? Do the majority of these cases resume? Do the answers to these questions vary based upon the type of patent reexamination request?

In 2007, 81 cases were stayed pending patent reexamination. Looking at the status of these cases today, long term results demonstrate a significant advantage for defendants.  Read the rest of this entry »

Patent Enforceability Key Factor In Patent Reexamination Eligibility, Not Expiration

In patent reexamination strategy, especially concurrent to litigation, timing is everything.

1. Timing of the original patent application dictates eligibility for inter partes patent reexamination. (i.e., on or after November 29, 1999)

2. Timing of a concurrent court proceeding may also control decision making. Inter partes patent reexamination is not a viable option relative to an advanced court proceedings. (See Sony v. Dudas)

3. Timing of the patent reexamination request, even the type of reexamination (i.e., ex parte or inter partes) will also greatly impact the ability to stay a parallel proceeding pending patent reexamination.

But what about expired patents? 

Recently, the court in APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Ameridose (DNJ) denied the defendants motion to stay, in part, as one of the three patents in-suit (4,870,086) was not undergoing patent reexamination. The court emphasized that the ‘086 patent (which was expired) was not subject to patent reexamination, Read the rest of this entry »

Undoing a Stay Pending Patent Reexamination?…Unlikely

Where an order has been granted to stay a patent litigation pending the outcome of a reexamination of the patent-in-suit, there is little likelihood that patent owner will be able to successfully appeal the decision ordering the stay of litigation. Such orders are generally not appealable, because they are not considered final decisions.  See Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1983). There is an exception where the stay “effectively could put one of the appellants out of court” or if some “patent issue would escape review by a federal court if the case is stayed.”  See Slip Track Sys., Inc. v. Metal-Lite, Inc., 159 F.3d 1337, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

It is difficult to identify many circumstances in which an “effectively out of court” situation would be presented for substantive issues based on concurrent reexamination. Of course, that doesn’t stop desperate plaintiffs from attempting this ”Hail Mary Pass” of legal maneuvers. Read the rest of this entry »

Courts Struggle with Realities of Post Grant Practice

A standard component of any patent litigation is a protective order. Such orders will invariably include a “prosecution bar. ” The prosecution bar operates to ensure that individuals accessing such confidential data are not permitted to prosecute patent applications in the area of the litigated technology (usually for a fixed duration of time). Absent this bar, patent applications/claims could be fashioned by competitive decision makers involved in the litigation based on the confidential information of their rival.

With concurrent patent reexamination now commonplace with most patent litigation, the question becomes:

Should a prosecution bar extend to patent reexamination?  

The answer to that question has varied across district courts, and even across judges of the same court. Those courts permitting participation in patent reexamination would benefit from a reading of the record in University of Virginia Patent Foundation v. General Electric Company.  Read the rest of this entry »

Court Lists Practical Efficiencies of Patent Reexamination

In attempting to stave off a motion to a district court litigation pending patent reexamination, the opposing party (almost always the Patentee) will often characterize a parallel patent reexamination as an “all or nothing proposition.” That is to say, in the face of the argument that the patent reexamination is likely to simplify issues for trial (almost always a defendant argument), the opponent will insist that USPTO statistics demonstrate that it is very unlikely that all claims will be canceled.

In Genzyme Corp., v Cobrek Pharmaceuticals Inc., (NDIL, Order 2/17/11), the relatively rare case of a Patentee requested stay was at issue. In deciding to stay the district court proceeding based on the familiar factor based analysis, the court found that simplification of issues was likely. In doing so, the court created a list of discovery efficiencies, potential cost savings, and case management benefits to be gained from awaiting the outcome of the USPTO action. Read the rest of this entry »

Infamous Katz Portfolio Withers Under Pressure of Patent Reexamination

USPTO empirical data is quite helpful for determining the frequency by which claims are amended, cancelled, or confirmed in patent reexamination. Yet, when it comes to the overall efficacy of patent reexamination, USPTO statistics only tell part of the story.

A successful reexamination from an infringer’s perspective does not always result in an overt claim change or cancellation. In other words, even where claims are confirmed, statements in the reexamination record that are inconsistent with arguments made in a concurrent litigation, or that rise to the level of an outright disclaimer may provide new, non-infringement positions to defendants. Likewise, such statements may limit the Patentee’s ability to distinguish the prior art.

In the ongoing patent reexaminations of the Katz portfolio, there have been significant victories for challengers. However, as made clear by the CAFC last week (In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation) not every victory shows up in USPTO statistics as cancelled/amended claims. Read the rest of this entry »

Is a Preliminary Injunction Ever Proper Parallel to Patent Reexamination?

Over the past week I have discussed the interplay between a parallel patent reexamination and requests for a preliminary injunction. On Monday I pointed out that if a request for injunctive relief remains outstanding courts are very reluctant to stay an ongoing litigation pending a parallel patent reexamination. Last week I explained that a defendant’s ability to argue prejudice, to fend off a stay pending patent reexamination, may very well hinge on the pursuit of a preliminary injunction. Left to explore this week is the impact of the parallel reexamination on the preliminary injunction equities ultimately weighed by the court.

To date, a parallel patent reexamination has been the “silver bullet” for defeating requests for such preliminary injunctive relief. Yet, as one defendant found out recently, perceived gamesmanship in patent reexamination tactics may re-direct that very same bullet to one’s foot. Read the rest of this entry »

Setting the Stage for a Showing of Prejudice

Obtaining a stay of an ongoing district court infringement action is one of the many benefits of patent reexamination concurrent with litigation. Defendants that are able to obtain a stay pending patent reexamination can avoid cost prohibitive litigation discovery during the course of the USPTO proceeding. 

In addition to cost savings, there are also tactical advantages to the USPTO proceeding. Unlike the courts, in patent reexamination, the USPTO does not recognize the presumption of validity. Moreover, the USPTO does not require the “clear and convincing” standard to demonstrate invalidity in patent reexamination, but employs the more liberal ”preponderance of the evidence” standard. As such, defendants can enhance the strength of their invalidity defense via patent reexamination. 

As defendants increasingly employ patent reexamination as a litigation tool, patent owners must adapt their game plan. Read the rest of this entry »

Microsoft v. i4i: Legislative Intent of Patent Reexamination?

The briefing in Microsoft v. i4i (Supreme Court 2011), has begun. As discussed at length previously, Microsoft has sought Supreme Court review of the following issue:

Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that Microsoft’s invalidity defense (which rested on prior art never considered by the USPTO) must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

Interestingly, Microsoft has already tested the preponderance of the evidence standard in ex parte patent reexamination for certain prior art at issue in the i4i dispute. To date, Microsoft has failed in both attempts. First, in 90/010,347 all claims were confirmed and exited patent reexamination in July of 2010. Subsequently, a second request (90/011,198), was outright denied by the USPTO.

Microsoft, has now submitted it’s brief to the Supreme Court, and several amicus briefs have been filed taking various positions on the issue.

In their opening brief to the SCOTUS, Microsoft argues that the clear and convincing standard is essentially a creature of the CAFC, based upon the CAFC’s flawed reading of 35 U.S.C. § 282. In closing, Microsoft notes that the USPTO itself uses a preponderance of the evidence standard in patent reexamination for prior art never before considered by the agency.

So, why does the USPTO use a different standard?  Read the rest of this entry »

Timing of Post Filing Conduct Deemed Crucial

As discussed previously, one purpose for seeking patent reexamination parallel to 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.

As Fairchild semiconductor learned the past week, it is probably best not to wait 5 years into a litigation and after a jury trial to showcase that objectively reasonable behavior. Read the rest of this entry »