November 2011

ABA, AIPLA and IPO Suggest PTAB Model Rules to USPTO

Early last week, the major bar associations submitted comments to the USPTO on the current Group 2 Rule Making effort. As a reminder, Group 2 Rules are a second phase of USPTO rules designed to implement features of the America Invents Act (AIA). The Group 2 Rules include Inter Partes Review (IPR) & Post Grant Review (PGR).

Unlike other organizations that submitted commentary only, the ABA, AIPLA and IPO coordinated their efforts to prepare a set of model rules. Of course, the Office has been working on their own rule sets in parallel. As such, the submitted model rule set (here) is primarily provided to serve as a preliminary gauge of stakeholder expectations.

Some interesting suggestions in the model rules are as follows:

1. Practitioners IPR/PGR: The model rules suggest that lead counsel in any PGR/IPR proceeding must be a registered practitioner. Pro hac vice practice is contemplated, but is suggested to be “rarely granted.” (See proposed rule 41.5)…

Continue Reading Patent Trial & Appeal Board Rules Drafted by Major Bar Associations

Director Kappos to Speak at CLE Webinar Tomorrow

For those requiring some additional CLE for 2011, Director Kappos will be speaking at American University Washington College of Law tomorrow, November 30, 2011. The program is entitled “The America Invents Act: A Patent Law Game Changer in a 21st Century Global Economy.” CLE credit (1.5) is…

New Appeal Rules Effective January 23, 2012

This past Monday the USPTO released the final rule package pertaining to the Rules of Practice Before the Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences in Ex Parte Appeals. (here).

This final rule notification stems from the earlier notice of proposed rule making issued last November. The rules are limited to ex parte proceedings only and have no bearing on patent interferences, or inter partes patent reexamination. Likewise, the new rules will not control Inter Partes Review or Post Grant Review. The final rules become effective on January 23, 2012. (for appeals initiated on or after the effective date)

In response to the original publication of the rules, I pointed out that the proposal provides an interesting safeguard against new rejections in an Examiner Answer. Namely, the filing of a 1.181 petition challenging such a rejection tolls the period for filing a Reply brief. Thus an Applicant may await decision on the petition before filing the Reply. This provision will be very helpful in patent application prosecution, but may aggravate ex parte reexamination pendency if abused.
Continue Reading USPTO to Implement New Ex Parte Appeal Rules for 2012

Historical Patent Reexamination Statistics Belie Modern Practices

When considering whether or not to stay a parallel litigation in view of a pending patent reexamination a district court will consider several factors. While delay is common to all stayed cases, the degree of delay caused by patent reexamination can be considered prejudicial. For this reason, especially when it comes to inter partes patent reexamination, the average length of the proceeding can be instructive to the Court.

Hoping to convince the Court of a prejudicial delay, Patentees will argue that inter partes patent reexamination takes on the order of 5-7 years to complete through appeal, citing those cases that have been fully contested through appeal. Defendants, on the other hand, will cite to published USPTO statistics that indicate inter partes patent reexamination pendency to be an average of 36 months, including appeal. (As pointed out previously, the 36 month statistic is skewed by the small number of completed inter partes patent reexaminations that have been fully contested through appeal).

However, regardless of the statistical theory advanced to the court, what neither theory considers is that historical statistics are weighed down by years of past USPTO practices. As one plaintiff found out recently, the USPTO has greatly streamlined the processing of inter partes patent reexamination relative to past practices.…

Continue Reading Patent Reexamination Speed Impresses District Court

Crucial Funding Necessary to Implement America Invents Act

The “minibus” spending bill (H.R. 2112) passed by the House and Senate late Thursday was signed into law by President Obama last Friday. The bill temporarily solves USPTO’s funding problems through September 30, 2012 (end of fiscal year ‘012). The bill allocates at least $2.7 billion of…

Court Favors Staying Troll Suit

The existence of a competitive relationship between the litigants is often times an important consideration to district court judges considering a stay pending patent reexamination. When weighing the equities whether or not to grant a motion to stay the court action pending USPTO reexamination the trend has been to deny motions for direct competitors. This is because, when staying a litigation dispute between competitors, there is a danger that the delay could cause erosion of market share, customer loyalty, or other intangible business factors….not so with patent trolls.

Patent trolls, also known as “non-practicing entities” to some, do not compete with their infringement targets in the marketplace. Not surprisingly, courts have begun to emphasize the “troll” factor as favoring a stay of the litigation.
Continue Reading Patent Reexamination Can Stop Patent Trolls in Their Tracks

business method patent

Business Method Patent Definition Keyed to Claim Scope?

The Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents, (TPCBMP) will be implemented by the UPSTO on September 16, 2012. The new post grant option essentially provides that any “covered business method patent” is eligible for Post Grant Review (PGR) independent of the standard limitations for initiating PGR (i.e., 9 month window, patent application filing date).

The legislation defines a “covered business method patent” in amorphous terms, as follows:

a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.

It is left to the USPTO to interpret the practical scope of a “covered business method patent.” Not surprisingly, those that routinely obtain patents in this space, USPTO (Class 705), advocate a narrow interpretation. On the other hand, companies subject to e-commerce patent assertion campaigns hope that the definition will be keyed to claim breadth– embracing patents outside of the banking and financial services industry.
Continue Reading Scope of Business Method Patent Challenge to be Decided by USPTO

Group 2 Comments on AIA Implementation Due to USPTO Tomorrow

As pointed out last week, the USPTO has been busy fashioning new rules to implement the various provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). Comments on Group 2 Rules, which include Inter PartesReview & Post Grant, must be submitted by November 15th.

Last week, Cisco, Google, Verizon and Intuit submitted joint comments (here) directed solely to the implementation of post grant proceedings, namely, Inter PartesReview (IPR) and Post Grant Review (PGR). Not surprisingly, these tech giants (i.e., targets of serial patent infringement suits) are especially supportive of post grant mechanisms as an alternative to traditional litigation. The Group’s comments encourage the Office to adopt liberal standards for initiation of IPR and PGR, limit the potential estoppel affect of a concluded proceeding, and provide procedural flexibility for petitioners.…

Continue Reading Tech Giants Weigh in On USPTO Post Grant Rule Making Effort

Patent Bar Required or Not?

The USPTO continues to work to fashion rules to implement the new post grant proceedings of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). One can only speculate that the new “trial” like, post grant proceedings of the AIA will be closely modeled on the procedures of existing patent interference practice. This is because the USPTO, aside from patent interference, has limited experience in presiding over the types of contested proceedings contemplated by Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post Grant Review (PGR).

In patent interferences, the Trial Division of the existing Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences (BPAI) conducts proceedings based upon a Standing Order. Patent interference requires an in depth knowledge of a difficult and relatively obscure aspect of patent law. As such, the attorneys who conduct these proceedings are seldom general litigators, but almost always registered patent attorneys with substantial experience in handling interferences–i.e., members of “the interference bar.”  However, such is not required.

…
Continue Reading General Litigators to Practice Before the New Patent Trial & Appeal Board?

Group 2 Rule Making Effort in Final Stages

Since the enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), and even before, the USPTO has been busy fashioning new rules to implement the various provisions of the legislation. The USPTO has been aggressively seeking public comment prior to publishing the proposed new rule notices due to the significant amount of changes introduced by the legislation and the short time time frame.

The Office has grouped the various rule packages. Group 1 related to rules that needed to be provided immediately. Group 2 is directed to provisions that will become available 12 months after enactment. These proposed rules are expected to be introduced in late December or early January.
Continue Reading USPTO Finalizing Post Grant Rule Packages