Ex Parte Reexamination

Subscribe to Ex Parte Reexamination
Dispute Over Reexamination Vacatur Sent Back to VA Court

The recent trend of denying PTAB trial petitions on discretionary grounds has been argued to frustrate the purpose of the America Invents Act (AIA).  Indeed, patent reexamination filings — the clunky mechanism the AIA was supposed to supplant — surged by 60+% last year.  With stakeholders unhappy with how the PTAB is operating, interesting questions are being raised on when/how a reexamination remains viable after a failed AIA trial petition.

Last year, the Federal Circuit considered the timing of a Patent Owner 325(d) challenge to a follow-on reexamination after a failed IPR petition. This week, the Federal Circuit considered whether a petitioner that has been denied a reexamination can seek further review via an APA action of the district court.
Continue Reading Reexamination Denial Subject to APA Judicial Review

Abusive Reexam Relief

Late last month, in In re Vivint, Inc., the Federal Circuit tackled the question of whether a post-issuance review proceeding (in this case, ex parte reexamination (“EPR”)) was available to a challenger that repeatedly filed another post-issuance review proceeding (in this case, inter partes review (“IPR”)) to forward the very same argument. The court held that, while the EPR request had shown substantial new questions of patentability, “the Patent Office abused its discretion and acted arbitrarily and capriciously under § 325(d).” As such the court vacated the decision and remanded to the Patent Office (“PTO”) with instructions to dismiss.

But, don’t expect this decision to be much more than a corner case.
Continue Reading Reexam After Failed IPR?

Bill Released – Iancu Era Rebuked

Well, the wait was not that long after all.  Senator Leahy -VT (D) (with co-sponsor Senator Cornyn – Tx (R)) has today released the draft bill entitled “Restoring the America Invents Act.”  The bill includes most of what I expected, with a handful of additional tweaks.

Below is a brief overview of all of the proposed changes.
Continue Reading Restoring the America Invents Act – What You Need to Know

Director Has Final Say…But Mostly More Busy Work

I’ve ignored the Arthrex decision for a few days, largely because it never really interested me (still doesn’t).  Of course, if you geek out over the severability doctrine, or the viewpoints of liberal versus conservative justices on the growing administrative state — have at it.  I just always saw it as an academic exercise that would have little impact on actual day-to-day PTAB practice.  As I predicted back in March, the SCOTUS result in Arthrex wasn’t exactly surprising.

While the Arthrex outcome will not change much in terms of PTAB strategy, there will be a beautiful mess in the short term.
Continue Reading PTAB Rehearings After Arthrex?

Webinars This Week on Post-Grant Patent Practice

A few interesting programs this week for those interested in a refresher on patent reexamination, or looking toward 2021 PTAB possibilities.

First, tomorrow (Tuesday) brings one of my favorite CLE programs of the year.   IAM’s IP 2020 (formerly Patent Law & Policy) kicks off tomorrow and runs through…

New Pilot Will Not Accelerate Post-Grant Matters

Last week the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced plans for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to begin accepting petitions for expedited resolution of ex parte appeals. The program, entitled “Fast-Track Appeals Pilot Program” launched July 2, 2020. (here)

But, the program may not benefit all appellants.  And it is important to understand that the program is not offering an appeal timeline (start to finish) that spans 6 months.
Continue Reading PTAB Fast-Track…Not So Fast

PTAB Estoppel & Inequitable Conduct

Inequitable conduct before the USPTO is an equitable defense to patent infringement that, if proved, bars enforcement of a patent. Thereasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2011).  Given the increasing inventory of Final Written Decisions (FWD) in larger patent portfolios, practitioners are only now beginning to confront issues of inequitable conduct relating to agency based estoppel.  That is, if a patent owner advances a position inconsistent with a previous PTAB FWD on a patent/related patent under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3), whether such a practice constitutes inequitable conduct. It just might.

But, for the time being, the courts’ lack of experience with the PTAB’s rule-based estoppel is benefiting patent owners.
Continue Reading Patent Prosecution After an Adverse PTAB FWD – Beware

April Boardside Chat: Ex Parte Appeals

The Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) will host its next “Boardside Chat” webinar this Thursday, April 5 from noon to 1 p.m. ET. The chat will discuss “Petitionable Matters, Objectionable Matters, and New Grounds of Rejections in Ex Parte Appeals.” PTAB Judges Adriene Lepiane Hanlon, Bruce Wieder, and…

PTAB Precedent (Not Surprisingly) Embraces CAFC Precedent

As I pointed out last week, it is a heavy lift for the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) to designate a precedential decision.  For this reason, nothing but the most straightforward of issues can be decided and designated “precedential.”

The PTAB issued a prime example of a seemingly straightforward precedential decision a few days ago in Ex parte McAward, Appeal 2015-006416 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017), Section I.B. (here). This PTAB precedent makes clear that the USPTO assesses indefiniteness pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s guidance in In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

While some have expressed shock at the PTAB pronouncing a different standard than that expressed in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014), this is just a restatement of the Board’s status quo since the Packard decision. (It is not exactly shocking that the Board is following the guidance of its reviewing court).

The more interesting issue is whether the Court’s reasoning in Packard is equally applicable to AIA trial proceedings?
Continue Reading New PTAB Precedent Endorses In re Packard….But For How Long?

USPTO Revisits 2011 Rule Proposal (Rules 56(a) &555(a))

In the wake of the Federal Circuit’s 2011 decision in Therasense Inc. v. Becton Dickinson and Co., the USPTO quickly moved to revise the Duty of Disclosure to align with the Court’s new, but-for materiality standard—perhaps too quickly.  The 2011 proposal sought to update the relevant rules (1.56 and 1.555) by explicitly adding a short hand, reference to the Therasense case itself. The earlier proposal also intertwined the the “egregious conduct” exception of the Therasense holding (Duty of Candor & Good Faith) with the Duty of Disclosure.

At the time, I questioned whether it was unnecessarily confusing to mix together concepts of conduct and disclosure given the agency’s historical segregation of such. Others found it odd that the rule would reference the name of the case as opposed to spelling out the “but-for” materiality standard of its holding.
Today, the USPTO has revisited this earlier proposal, and issued a new proposal.  

…
Continue Reading USPTO to Adjust Duty of Disclosure to Align With Therasense