Scott McKeown

Subscribe to Scott McKeown's Posts
Contact:Read more about Scott McKeown

Customers of a Defendant Supplier Do Not Have CBM Standing

The Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of a CBM review of Phoenix Licensing, LLC’s (“Phoenix”) 8,352,317 patent in CBM2015-00068, determining that the only remaining Petitioner, Acxiom Corp. (“Acxiom”), lacked standing under § 18(a)(1)(B) of the AIA. (here)

By way of background, the Petition was originally filed by four entities, but the proceeding was terminated with respect to AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Services, Inc., and Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), leaving only Acxiom. Under § 18(a)(1)(B), a person may not file a CBM unless the person or the person’s real party in interest or privy has been sued for infringement of the patent or otherwise charged with infringement of the patent. As such, CBM petitions are required to establish that the petitioner meets the standing requirements with sufficient proof. In this case, the Petition merely stated that Acxiom is one of the “real parties-in-interest to and/or privies of one or more parties who have been sued…” without providing any additional explanation or evidence.
Continue Reading CBM Standing Flows Up the Supply Chain, Not Down

Functional Aspect of Structural Term Overlooked

Yesterday, in Power Integrations, Inc., v. Lee (CAFC 2015) the Court considered the rejection of claims 1, and 17-19 of  U.S Patent 6,249,876. Reexamination of the ‘876 patent was initiated by the USPTO in 2006 at the request of Fairchild Semiconductor. At issue in the reexamination (and in a parallel infringement action) was the meaning of the claim terminology  “coupled to.” The Patentee insisted that this terminology had both a functional and structural meaning. On appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI — Now the PTAB), affirmed the examiner’s rejection of the claims. In doing so, the Board appeared to focus only on the structural aspect of the disputed claim terminology.

The CAFC reversed and remanded finding that the Board’s focus on the structural aspects of the disputed claim terminology to be “red herring.”  

…
Continue Reading CAFC Finds PTAB Claim Analysis Incomplete Relative to Markman

Improved Speed For Overlooked Post-Grant Patent Options

Once upon a time, patent reexamination was the only mechanism to challenge a U.S. patent at the USPTO.  First introduced as an ex parte proceeding in the 1980s, patent reexamination was expanded to include an inter partes option in 1999.  Thereafter, patent reexamination became a popular adjunct to patent litigation. Yet, increased popularity of patent reexamination led to significant delays and increased pendency. The expanding timelines, among other shortcomings, prevented inter partes patent reexamination from serving as a true alternative to patent litigation. Not until the patentability trial mechanisms of the America Invents Act (AIA) did Congress finally succeed in providing a true alternative to patent litigation at the USPTO. 

Once the AIA patentability trials were introduced, inter partes patent reexamination was discontinued.  Still ex parte patent reexamination remains an option.  Not surprisingly, reexamination decreased in popularity post-AIA.  The reasons for the decrease in popularity is straightforward.  First, an inter partes AIA challenge option will almost always be preferred over an ex parte option for high-value disputes (where available).  Second, a large number of ex parte reexaminations were pursued, pre-AIA, out of necessity.  That is, older patents were not date-eligible for inter partes reexamination.  Of course, all issued patents are date-eligible for AIA review.  For at least these reasons, the current filing rate of  ex parte reexamination is roughly 50% of the 2008 filing numbers.

The falling numbers for ex parte reexaminations, coupled with the elimination of inter partes patent reexamination has, in limited respects, made ex parte reexamination a more attractive option as compared to 2008.

…
Continue Reading Patent Reexamination Speed Presents New Opportunity

PTAB Announces New Informative Decisions

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has designated the recent decision granting a request for additional discovery in Arris Group, Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2015-00635 (Paper 10) (PTAB May 1, 2015) as an informative decision. The decision grants Patent Owner’s Motion for Additional Discovery on issues of…

Duty of Candor Controls “Prior Art Known to Patent Owner”
UPDATE: This decision is now designated as “Informative” (here)

Last week, an expanded panel of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) clarified the required showings necessary to a successful motion to amend. Of note, the expanded panel included Deputy Chief Nathan Kelly as well as Vice Chief Scott Boalick. In the decision, Masterimage 3D. Inc. v. RealD Inc. (IPR2015-00040) (here), the Board clarified the meaning of the Idle Free phrase: “prior art of record and also prior art known to the patent owner.”

As outlined in Idle Free Systems v. Bergstrom Inc., (IPR2012-00027), amendment during an AIA trial proceeding is by motion. As such, the burden is on the movant to demonstrate entitlement to the patentability of amended claims. One aspect of Idle Free that movants have struggled to digest is the metes and bounds of “prior art known to Patent Owner.” In MasterImage, the Board clarified that the “prior art known to Patent Owner” is linked to the art that would trigger the Patent Owner’s Duty of Candor.
Continue Reading Expanded PTAB Panel Clarifies Idle Free Amendment Requirements

Patent Reform Effort Slides…as Expected

An update to today’s cheat sheet.
Given the burgeoning opposition to the “Innovation Act” (H.R. 9), the current bill was pulled from floor consideration this morning.  Back to the drawing board.

As to at least the PTAB changes, the focus can now appropriately turn to the imminent rule package

…

PTAB Proposals on House Side

Last week, I summarized the PTAB modifications proposed in the Senate’s Patent Act” (S.1137).  While there is an expectation that at least the House will try to bring “Innovation Act” (H.R. 9). to the floor for a vote, meaningful progress seems unlikely. Opposition to the bills has ramped up in recent days from conservative groups, and proponents of competing bills.  Coupled with the looming five week summer recess, it is inevitable that  Congress will kick the proverbial can down the road.

As pointed out previously, a rule package from the USPTO is expected in the July-August time frame that could moot many of these issues.  With that in mind, a delay in legislative action would be prudent.

That said, here are the current proposals of H.R. 9 that are directed at PTAB practice.

…
Continue Reading PTAB Cheat Sheet for House Bill