May 2019

Senate Judiciary Hearings Start Next Week

The Senate Judiciary Committee will conduct back-to-back hearings next Tuesday and Wednesday entitled “The State of Patent Eligibility in America. The marathon fact-finding hearings come on the heels of the proposed 101 framework released last week. Each of the hearings will include three panels of five speakers.

Judging on the lineups for next week, so far the deck is plainly stacked pro-reform.
Continue Reading Senate 101 Hearings Stacked in Favor of Reform

Proposed Framework Isn’t Just About Fixing 101

Since Wednesday’s release of a proposed 101 framework, some have mistakenly dismissed its legislative viability as failing to account for the interests of Big Tech — nothing could be further from the truth.

The proposal is the result of months of negotiations with the major patent stakeholders, most notably the Bio/Pharma and Tech lobbies. While the Bio/Pharma side would greatly benefit from a broadening of patent eligibility (such as proposed) to more readily secure patent protection for technologies such as medical diagnostics, the Tech Lobby has largely opposed such as it leverages 101 to fight back against abstract patent claims. To bridge this divide, the framework presents a narrowing provision that will primarily impact the claim scope of patents asserted against Tech.
Continue Reading 101 Legislative Proposal Includes Provision to Narrow Functional Claims

Redundant Grounds Not An Efficient Administration of Justice

Last month, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) issued an Order explaining that maintaining multiple, concurrent proceedings per patent presents a significant burden for the Board.  More specifically, where the same claims are challenged across multiple, redundant petitions (i.e., pile-on), the Board pointed out that instituting trial across all redundant filings may undermine the Office’s ability to complete proceedings in a timely manner and places an unfair burden on the Patent Owner. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).

That petition filer, which has filed numerous redundant petitions across a large patent portfolio, is now seeing the first of its redundant petitions being denied.Continue Reading PTAB Begins to Deny Pile-On Petitions from Same Petitioner

Draft Framework Released

As previously discussed, Congress is poised to revise the law of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  To this end, a draft framework has been floated in advance of three upcoming stakeholder meetings on the Hill (June 4th, 5th and 11th).

Today, U.S. Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE), Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, and Representatvie Doug Collins (R-GA-9), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, Hank Johnson (D-GA-4), Chairman of the House Judiciary Subommittee on Intellectual Property and the Courts, and Steve Stivers (R-OH-15) released a bipartisan, bicameral draft bill that would reform Section 101 of the Patent Act.
Continue Reading Congress Floats Draft Bill Outlining New 101 Framework

Rehearing Cites Lack of Countervailing Public Policy Against PTAB Review

Last month the Federal Circuit decided Dodocase VR, Inc. v. Merchsource, LLC (here). In Dodocase the Federal Circuit held that a standard forum selection clause can divest the PTAB of AIA trial jurisdiction.

If maintained, the ability to avoid the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) by private agreement would prove a game changer in periodic licensing agreements between competitors, including SEP licensors.

But, earlier this week, en banc rehearing was sought.
Continue Reading CAFC Urged to Rehear PTAB Forum Selection Dispute

Standing Dispute Highlights 315(e)(2) Estoppel Concern

Article III standing has been a problem for certain petitioners seeking review of adverse Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) AIA trial rulings. This is because, while the AIA statutes provide that anyone other than a patent owner may challenge a patent at the PTAB, Article III standing is necessary for petitioners to appeal adverse PTAB decisions to the Federal Circuit. Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc.  Since Phigenix, there have been a number of Federal Circuit decisions exploring the degree of harm necessary to convey Article III standing in this context.

Earlier this week, the Federal Circuit analyzed “competitor harm” as a basis for Article III standing along with the potential of adverse estoppel impact of 35 U.S.C. §315(e)(2) on the petitioner.. While the competitor harm analysis may be interesting from an academic standpoint, the more meaningful discussion for practitioners is the Court’s commentary on the 315(e) estoppel impact for such petitioners. 
Continue Reading Finality Aspect of Common Law Estoppel May Not Matter for PTAB Estoppel Under 315(e)

PatentsPostGrant.Com May Webinar

The AIA represents a major shift in U.S. patent policy and its full scope and effect remain a moving target.  Opportunities and challenges are presented post-AIA in patent licensing and related agreements such as joint collaborations. New issues include prior sales under Helsinn v. Teva, forum selection clauses & the PTAB,…

Is the 315(b) Time Bar Particular to a “Patent Owner?”

Earlier this year the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted trial in Sling TV, L.L.C. et al. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC, IPR2018-01331, Paper 9 (PTAB January 31, 2019). In doing so it created a new exception to the 315(b) time bar. The…

Deputy Commissioner to Discuss 101 Guidelines

The USPTO is hosting a Boardside Chat webinar today from noon to 1 p.m. ET to discuss the new guidance on patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy Robert Bahr and Lead Judge Mike Kim will present.

The webinar is free and…

PTAB Cements Institutional Discretion

Back in January, I identified the Board’s expanding view of 314(a) discretion as the most significant development of 2018. In that earlier post, I predicted that one such 314(a)/325(d) case, NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., would be designated precedential in 2019.

Yesterday, the PTAB delivered on my prediction.
Continue Reading New PTAB Precedent: 314(a) Not Just for Follow-On Petitions