Scott McKeown

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

Growth in PTAB Post-Grant Filings May Require Changes to Workflow

PTABThis time last year, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) had about 250 Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Covered Business Method (CBM) petitions pending. Only half that number were in the trial phase.

One year later, the PTAB has received 1500 IPR and CBM petitions, roughly half of which are now in trial phase. The surge in filings over the past two months has been especially pronounced, averaging 150 petitions per month. This is the new normal.

The chart below is from June 6, 2014. (Click to Enlarge)

aia_statistics_06_05_2014

As explained at the PTAB roadshow, the Trial Section of the PTAB consists of roughly 70 judges at present. (with plans to add another 52 by October). While the influx of judges will certainly help handle the growing workload, given the magnitude of trials that will soon be pending, the PTAB will need to adjust the daily workflow to maintain their 12 month trial mandate.
Continue Reading Inexperienced Attorneys Tax PTAB Resources

Please enter your email address below to be removed from our subscriber list.

{rsform 3}

Article III Standing a Rare Concern at PTAB

Last week, the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (CAFC) determined that public interest groups challenging patents at the USPTO must demonstrate Article III standing to appeal failed challenges to the Court. In Consumer Watchdog v. WARF, Consumer Watchdog  appealed  a determination of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) to uphold claims of WARF patent 7,029,913 directed to stem cell cultures (inter partes reexamination 95/000,154). (here). In dismissing the appeal, the Court explained that while Consumer Watchdog was provided a procedural right to appeal by the inter partes reexamination statutes, an “injury in fact” was necessary to confer Article III standing. That is, such appeals require “a particularized, concrete stake in the outcome of the reexamination.”  Consumer Watchdog’s status as an entity that does not compete with the patent owner was strongly emphasized in the decision. The court left “it to future panels to decide whether, under other circumstances, the preclusive effect of the estoppel provisions could constitute an injury in fact.”

While an interesting decision, such public interest challenges were exceedingly rare in inter partes patent reexamination (discontinued by the AIA in 2012). On the other hand, Inter Partes Review (IPR) has seen a fair amount of activity from such entities. For this reason, some have speculated that this decision may have a chilling effect on such filings going forward. However, since IPR challenges are not governed by reexamination procedural practices, such filings are likely to continue.…

Continue Reading IPR Joinder Limits Impact of WARF Decision

Outdated Patent Drafting Techniques Present Opportunities.

The Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) poses a significant threat to patent monetization. Not because the PTAB is anti-patent, far from it, but because the patents challenged today were drafted for the scrutiny of the district court. That is, in a district court invalidity is only found where the presumption of patent validity is overcome by a clear and convincing evidentiary showing. Given the relative low risk of this happening as compared to a non-infringement finding, patents were drafted to obtain the broadest claims possible for ensuring a clean infringement read. Of course, the attractiveness of PTAB challenges is the absence of such pro-patentee standards.

As discussed previously, now that PTAB challenges are becoming the standard, initial hurdle, patents need to be drafted differently, or “post-grant proofed.” This new PTAB centric drafting and prosecution strategy is especially critical in the predictable arts. This is because existing claim drafting strategies might also permit your competitor to game the estoppel flowing from an unsuccessful Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenge.
Continue Reading Gaming IPR Estoppel

nautilus-112

Decision Indirectly Highlights Value of Post-Grant Challenges

Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided that the Federal Circuit’s “insolubly ambiguous” framework for analyzing indefiniteness was, well…. indefinite.  In Nautilus Inc. v Biosig Instruments, Inc., the court found that “. . .the expressions “insolubly ambiguous” and “amenable to construction” permeate the Federal Circuit’s recent decisions concerning § 112, ¶2’s requirement.  We agree with Nautilus and its amici that such terminology can leave courts and the patent bar at sea without a reliable compass” (here). In reversing the decision of the CAFC, the case was remanded with instructions to consider a re-calibrated standard. That is, whether the claims when read in light of the specification and prosecution history fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, the scope of the claims to one of skill in the relevant art. The new test, as discussed at length in the decision, emphasizes a more fact intensive analysis.

As pointed out in footnote 10 of the decision, the parties dispute over the proper weight to be accorded the underlying proofs (i.e., clear and convincing, or not), and the degree of deference to a previous post-grant determination of the USPTO, were left for another day—That day may be just around the corner.
Continue Reading Nautilus Decision to Drive PGR and CBM Filings

Patentee Successfully Narrows Claims in IPR

Since the passage of the America Invents Act (AIA) the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) has successfully fulfilled its charge as a speedy, cost effective alternative to patent litigation. But, that is not to say that the road has been completely bump-free. As discussed previously, there has been some controversy in the early going as patentees struggle to adapt to the motion requirements necessary for amending claims before the PTAB. That is, many patentees perceive the rigid motion requirements as an unfair hurdle, justifying their criticism on the fact that the PTAB has yet to permit an amendment (save those simply cancelling claims).

This past Tuesday, an amendment finally made it through.
Continue Reading PTAB Grants First Motion to Amend in IPR

Court Declines Review of Finality Issue

The CAFC first considered the validity of Baxter International’s U.S. Patent 5,247,434 (the ‘434 patent) on appeal from a patent infringement litigation with Fresenius. In that first 2009 appeal (now commonly referred to as Fresenius I), the Court upheld the patent over certain prior art. After Fresenius I, the litigation dispute went back to the district court on a damages related remand.

Meanwhile, in May 2012 a patent reexamination proceeding initiated by Fresenius in 2007 made its way to the CAFC. The reexamination was based on much the same prior art as previously considered in Fresenius I. This time, the CAFC affirmed the determination of the PTAB (then BPAI) that the claims were obvious over the applied prior art applying the more liberal standards for USPTO challenges. En banc review was then sought, but declined by the CAFC. A petition of certiorari on the seemingly conflicting results was also pursued, but denied by the Supreme Court.

Thereafter, Fresenius II made it’s way to the CAFC to determine whether the outstanding damage award of the district court was enforceable in light of the CAFC’s decision in In re Baxter (2012). The CAFC held that since the damage award was not yet final, it was essentially voided by the cancellation of the patent in reexamination. Once again, en banc review was sought, and denied by the CAFC, last summer. A second petition for certiorari was then pursued for Fresenius II. This most recent petition was denied today, finally ending the dispute.

Given the high court’s lack of interest in Fresenius I, which more squarely presented the issue of seemingly conflicting final results, it is not at all surprising…
Continue Reading Supreme Court Once Again Passes on Fresenius Patent Reexamination Result