Business Method Patent Challenge

Subscribe to Business Method Patent Challenge via RSS

preliminary injunction-post grant

AIA Post Grant Trial Mechanisms: Game Changers

Currently, Patentees anticipating a motion to stay a parallel litigation pending patent reexamination will often pursue a preliminary injunction (PI) to bolster their argument that a stay would be prejudicial as between competitors. That is to say, the relatively long, multi-year pendency rates of patent reexamination coupled with a perceived deterioration in market share (not compensable by money damages), was often times enough potential prejudice to influence a judge to deny a stay of the proceeding. …or at least delay any decision to stay until after a decision on the merits of the request for injunctive relief.

Later, when addressing the merits of the PI request, courts would weigh the reexamination evidence against the “likelihood of success on the merits” factor of the well known PI analysis. In some instances, courts would look dis-favorably upon the mere grant of a patent reexamination request. This is because, historically, the grant rate for patent reexamination requests hovered around 93% under the SNQ standard. Likewise, courts would disregard interim rejections of the patent reexamination proceeding as subject to years of further prosecution/appeals.

Yet, these criticisms may no longer apply after September 2012, the effective date of the new contested proceedings of the America Invents Act (AIA).

Starting on September 16 2012, the pendency of the new contested patentability challenges (Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR), Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents (TPCBM) will be 12-18 months by statute; a far cry from the 5-7 years for inter partes patent reexamination. At the same time, the standards for initiating the new proceedings have been raised relative to the old SNQ standard to reduce the overall grant rate.
Continue Reading Preliminary Injunctions an Even Tougher Sell Post AIA?

Congress Mandates Speed, Extends Stautory Estoppel to ITC

The new post grant patent trials of the America Invents Act (AIA) are designed to provide a true alternative to patent litigation. That is to say, current patent reexamination proceedings are typically pending 4-5 years through appeal, if not longer. As a result, patent reexamination is primarily utilized as an additional litigation tool rather than the alternative to patent litigation intended by Congress. Conversely, the new AIA trial proceedings are designed to conclude, by statute, within 12-18 months of initiation.

Whether, choosing Post Grant Review (PGR), Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents (TPCBMP), or Inter Partes Review (IPR), the new proceedings will conclude relatively promptly, and estoppel will attach upon a written determination of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Based on the increased speed, and estoppel result, it is expected that the new proceedings will provide a compelling basis to stay parallel infringement actions.

However, the International Trade Commission (ITC) also has a statutory mandate for expeditiously processing their docket (typically within 15 months). For this reason, the ITC is currently an “anti-stay” forum. Given the likelihood of future parallel tracks of the USPTO and ITC, will the ITC change their “anti-stay” practice to account for the post-AIA world?
Continue Reading New Post Grant Patent Trials To Derail Parallel ITC Actions?

Reach of Estoppel More of a Concern After AIA

The application of statutory estoppel to patent challengers was a concept first introduced in 1999 with the advent of inter partes patent reexamination (IPX). Initially, many sensationalized the estoppel effect of IPX together with the unpredictability of the reexamination process as justification to avoid use of the new proceeding. Over the years, due to the consistent performance of the USPTO’s Central Reexamination Unit (CRU), and perhaps to a greater extent, the 5-7 year duration of a fully contested IPX, patent challengers realized the estoppel risk to be an insignificant factor for most patent disputes (since most conclude before estoppel can attach). For this reason, the estoppel mechanics as to real-parties-in-interest and privies were infrequently considered by the courts, or USPTO.

Going forward, estoppel may once again become a concern for patent challengers under the new proceedings of the America Invents Act (AIA).

Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR), and the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents (TPCBMP), all have their own estoppel provisions. In view of the fact that all of these proceedings are designed to end within 12 months, estoppel is now a more clear and present danger. As such, it is now more important than ever for patent challengers to understand the meaning of “real party-in-interest” and “privies.”…

Continue Reading Real-Party-in-Interest & Privies Before the USPTO

Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents (TPCBMP)

The Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents, (TPCBMP) will be implemented by the USPTO on September 16, 2012. The new post grant option essentially provides that any “covered business method patent” may be challenged under the same procedures and standards applied in Post Grant Review (PGR) proceedings. The TPCBMP will sunset 8 years from implementation, hence the “transitional” label.

The major differences between PGR and TPCBMP relate to patent eligibility and estoppel.

With respect to estoppel, PGR estoppel attaches to any ground that the petitioner raised, or reasonably could have raised during the PGR. On the other hand, TPCBMP estoppel is only limited to issues actually raised during the proceeding.

The legislation defines a “covered business method patent” in general 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.

As can be appreciated, the definition of “covered business method patent” is of great interest to some of the leading U.S. innovators. Recently, the Senator (Schumer D-NY) that introduced the TPCBMP to the patent reform legislation urged the USPTO to adopt a very liberal definition of “covered business method patent.”…

Continue Reading Senator Urges USPTO To Tackle Software & E-commerce Patents

Commentary on Notice of Proposed Rules to Implement Post Grant Patent Proceedings Due on Monday

The deadlines for submitting comments to the USPTO on the Group 2 rule making proposals (i.e., post grant patent proceedings) are next Monday and Tuesday, April 9-10th. (depending upon the publication date)

While the USPTO should be applauded for their …

Speedy, One Sided Estoppel to Force Judicial Deference

The estoppel provisions of Post Grant Review (PGR) and Inter Partes Review (IPR) are markedly different than those in existence today for Inter Partes Reexamination (IPX). Most importantly, PGR/IPR estoppel attaches upon a written determination of the PTAB, and a final, non-appealable decision of a court will not force the USPTO to vacate a parallel IPR/PGR proceeding. These estoppel features are expected to be a significant driver going forward in motions to stay parallel infringement actions.

Currently, IPX requires all appeals to be exhausted before estoppel can attach. In practice, this means that there is (roughly speaking) a 6 year journey through the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU), Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences (BPAI) and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). Starting September 16 2012, IPX will be replaced with IPR. Estoppel in an IPR proceeding will be effective within 12-18 months from the initiation of the proceeding. This is because IPR/PGR proceedings must be concluded in this time frame by statutory mandate.

The speed of IPR/PGR proceedings relative to court proceedings will certainly undermine plaintiff oppositions to a motion to stay. Often times, the strongest plaintiff argument in opposing a stay is that the significant USPTO delay will be prejudicial to the plaintiff.  However, perhaps more compelling will be the shifting of the prejudice argument to the side of the defendant.
Continue Reading AIA Changes to Greatly Increase Stays of District Court Actions?

Romney, Gingrich and Santorum Named as Defendants in Patent Suit

This past Monday, EveryMD filed suit against the Republican presidential candidates for…well..using Facebook. The suit, captioned EveryMD v. Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich(C.D.CA) explains that U.S. Patent 7,644,122 is infringed by Facebook, and as business customers of Facebook receiving messages, that there…