Amendment

Subscribe to Amendment via RSS
Director Memo Decides Against Standard of In Re Packard

Back in 2018 I noted the current PTO administration had backed away from a dispute on the appropriate 112 standard to apply in AIA trials (after intervention by the previous PTO administration). That is, the initial intervention sought to support the application of the standard enunciated by In re Packard to AIA trial proceedings.  After Director Iancu came on board, that Intervenor Brief was withdrawn.

Today, the PTO formally announced (via memorandum) that the Nautilus standard applies to AIA trials – settling an open question….at least for the time being.Continue Reading PTAB Applies Nautilus 112 Standard to AIA Trials…For Now

CAFC Holds IPR Claim Amendments Subject To Full Patentability Examination

Yesterday, a divided CAFC panel held in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC (here) that during an IPR proceeding, the Board may consider any patentability challenge—including subject matter eligibility—if the Patent Owner moves to amend its claims under § 316(d).  The Court continues to emphasize the agency’s duty to the public in assessing patentability of the patent claims it issues.
Continue Reading 101 is Fair Game for Assessing PTAB Amendments

Settlement by Amendment Scenario Thwarted in PTAB Rehearing Reversal

Last March, I explained the strange scenario playing out in ZTE USA Inc., & LG Electronics Inc. v. Cywee Group LTD. (IPR2019-00143).  In ZTE, the original petitioner was joined upon institution by a second petitioner.  As is often the case, the joined petitioners were competitors.  (A joined petitioner takes an understudy role in AIA trial proceedings, absent a settlement between the original petitioner and the patent owner).

Rather than settle, the original petitioner in ZTE decided not to oppose the Patent Owner’s amended claims, or for that matter, even request oral argument.  And, given that the original petitioner was at least still present in the proceeding, the PTAB refused to allow the second petitioner to step in and oppose the amended claims. My previous post pointed out that this was bad policy that could lead to anticompetitive behavior in joinder scenarios.

Last Friday, the PTAB reconsidered its initial decision, and in the wake of Hunting Titan, reversed its earlier decision to allow the amendment opposition of the second petitioner.
Continue Reading PTAB Allows Joined Party to Oppose Amendment in Place of Original Petitioner

Roughly 10% of AIA Proceedings Involve Amendments

Earlier this week the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) released the sixth installment of its Motion to Amend Study. The study tracks and analyzes all motions to amend filed in America Invents Act trials, including pilot motions, through the end of March 2020.  Not surprisingly, this installment doesn’t look much different than previous ones.  Amendment remains unpopular at the Board for strategic reasons, and those Patent Owners that do attempt amendment are rarely successful.

While the 6th installment preview early results on the Amendment Pilot, it does not present success rates (which to date, are no better then the old program – also, not a surprise). While there was an initial flurry of Patent Owners opting for the Pilot program, that initial amendment popularity has waned.
Continue Reading PTAB Amendment Study Shows More of the Same

CAFC Decision Moots Some POP Consideration in Hunting Titan Dispute

Last November, the PTAB ordered Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) review of the final written decision in  Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics GmbH & Co. KG, Inc., IPR2018-00600. The rehearing request in Hunting Titan sought review of the Board’s denial of a Motion to Amend based upon an alleged sua sponte modification of a petitioner’s anticipation ground by the panel (here).  That is, the POP is reviewing the Board’s role in the amendment process where a petitioner either decides not to challenge an amended claim, or does so in a deficient manner that is apparent to the expert agency.

But the Federal Circuit has now weighed in on most aspects of this debate.
Continue Reading CAFC Finds “Little Sense” in Limiting the PTAB on Amended Claims

Public Policy Disfavors the Issuance of Unexamined Patent Claims

Last November, the PTAB ordered Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) review of the final written decision in  Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics GmbH & Co. KG, Inc., IPR2018-00600. The rehearing request in Hunting sought review of the Board’s denial of a Motion to Amend based upon an alleged sua sponte modification of a petitioner’s anticipation ground by the panel (here).  That is, the POP is reviewing the Board’s role in the amendment process where a petitioner either decides not to challenge an amended claim, or does so in a deficient manner that is apparent to the expert agency.

Does the PTO owe a duty to the public from issuing amended claims that have not been adequately examined/reviewed for patentability?
Continue Reading The PTAB’s Important Role in the Policing of Amended Patent Claims

Motion to Amend Practice

For those interested in motion to amend practice in AIA trials, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) will be conducting a webinar on the topic this Wednesday, December 4th from noon to 1PM (EST) (here)

Deputy Chief Judge Jackie Bonilla and Lead Judge Jessica Kaiser will address a…

Burden of Persuasion to Demonstrate Unpatentability on Petitioner

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to allocate the burdens of persuasion on motions to amend in AIA trial proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).  The NPRM proposes that a petitioner bears the burden to show the unpatentability of substitute claims proposed in a motion to amend; a patent owner bears the burden to show that a motion to amend complies with certain statutory and regulatory requirements; and the Board may, in the interests of justice, make a determination regarding the patentability of substitute claims based on the record in the proceeding regardless of the burdens assigned to any party.

The NPRM basically follows the en banc decision in Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017), in which a majority of the judges concluded that the Office had not adopted a rule allocating the burden of persuasion with respect to the patentability of proposed substitute claims. In light of Aqua Products, as well as public comment provided in response to a Request for Comments, the Office proposes to issue specific rules applicable to motions to amend.
Continue Reading Resolving AIA Amendment Burdens Unlikely to Move the Needle at the PTAB

October Boardside Chat to Cover FY2019 PTAB Changes

With today being the last day of FY2019, the October Boardside Chat will look back at all of the 2019 changes to ex parte appeal and AIA trial procedures. The webinar is scheduled for October 10th, from noon to 1 p.m. (EST).

The FY2019 changes include the…

Patent Owners Largely Ignore Ex Parte Amendment Options

A few weeks back the USPTO issued a Notice Regarding Options for Amendments by Patent Owner Through Reissue or Reexamination During a Pending AIA Trial Proceeding (here). The Notice provided no new information, instead, it served to remind the public that reissue/reexamination options exist to amend claims outside of AIA trials. Given the continuous public outcry over AIA amendment difficulties, one would expect a fairly robust jump in reexam/reissue filing rates—especially as these options provide an ex parte amendment process.

However, as recent Patent Trial & Appeal PTAB statistics show, very few Patent Owners are pursuing these traditional amendment paths.
Continue Reading Amending Outside of the PTAB: Why So Few Reexams/Reissues?