Inter Partes Review

Subscribe to Inter Partes Review via RSS

Practical Pendency of IPR to be 18-24 Months

In promulgating the new Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding as part of the America Invents Act (AIA) Congress hoped to address a major criticism of inter partes patent reexamination (IPX), namely, the significant length of time necessary to conclude these proceedings.

IPX first includes an examination phase handled by patent examiners of the Central Reexamination Unit. Once the examination phase concludes, an IPX may be appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). Thereafter, an IPX may be further appealed to the CAFC. This three-phase process cannot be navigated quickly. That is to say, IPXs fully contested through CAFC appeal remain pending some 6-8 years from the time of the initial request.

Pendency is an important factor for challengers considering alternatives for quickly resolving a patent dispute. Likewise courts will often cite to the significant delay of IPX as justification to deny a request to stay ongoing litigation proceedings pending a parallel IPX.

To address this problem, Congress mandated that IPR be concluded at the USPTO with in 12 months, extendable to 18 months if the Director is able to show cause for extension (§ 316 (11)). Yet, is it realistic to expect a 12 month duration?
Continue Reading How Long Will Inter Partes Review Really Take?

Inter Partes Review Estoppel Applies to Ex Parte Patent Reexamination

Last week, I explained the current estoppel provisions of inter partes patent reexamination and the new Inter Partes Review estoppel relative to parallel litigation proceedings. I pointed out that the Inter Partes Review (IPR) estoppel provisions are similar in some respects to the current inter partes patent reexamination (IPX) provisions, but differ in important aspects of timing and scope.  As a result of these improvements, it is expected that the filing of an IPR will be especially effective to stay a district court litigation pending the outcome of the IPR. (Note: The ITC may take a dimmer view of these speedier proceedings in view of their mandate).

Another interesting consideration is how the new estoppel provisions will impact the USPTO. That is to say, the estoppel provisions of Inter Partes Review will not only have an impact on court proceedings, but also other USPTO proceedings, including ex parte patent reexamination.
Continue Reading Inter Partes Review Estoppel to Unmask Anonymous Filers?

Estoppel Provisions Disfavor Parallel Proceedings

During yesterday’s webinar on post grant USPTO proceedings, I compared the current estoppel provisions of inter partes patent reexamination to that of Inter Partes Review. The Inter Partes Review (IPR) estoppel provisions are similar in some respects to the current inter partes patent reexamination (IPX) provisions, but differ in significant respects.

In some ways, the new estoppel provisions are designed to address shortcomings of the existing IPX estoppel provisions. For example, while IPX estoppel does not apply to ITC proceedings, the IPR provisions extend estoppel to ITC proceedings. Additionally, while the IPX provisions use the terminology “raised or could have raised,” the new IPR provisions recite “raised or reasonably could have raised during Inter Partes Review.” Ostensibly, this language softening is designed to provide some slight wiggle room to account for the late found reference in a far away library of Siberia.

Of perhaps much greater interest however is the aspect of IPR estoppel that may compel judges to stay a parallel litigation pending IPR.…

Continue Reading New Inter Partes Review Grounds to Stay Most Patent Litigation?

Pre-1999 Patent Filings No longer Immune to Inter Partes Challenge

Back in August, I explained the import of various effective date provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) as they relate to current and future post grant USPTO challenges.

The AIA changes the USPTO standard for initiating inter partes patent reexamination; this change will take effect upon enactment, tomorrow.

A second important date provision is the one year anniversary of enactment as it may foreclose inter partes options altogether for defendants currently involved in suits pertaining to newer patents (i.e., patents that matured from applications filed on or after November 29, 1999). For such litigants, if an inter partes proceeding is desired, action must be taken before the anniversary.

Interestingly, for those defendants that will become involved in suits pertaining to older patents (i.e., pre- ’99 filings) after enactment, but before the anniversary, options at the USPTO will actually expand upon the one year anniversary. That is to say, defendants may choose to wait for new inter partes opportunities to challenge patents never before eligible for such scrutiny.…

Continue Reading Older Patents Soon Subject to USPTO Inter Partes Review

Race to Secure Venue Could Shut Out USPTO

When there is an imminent threat of litigation, rather than await the inevitable lawsuit, a potential defendant may pursue a declaratory judgement to establish a lack of liability. In patent disputes, declaratory judgment of invalidity and/or non-infringement were traditionally sought to remove the specter of litigation from a prospective defendant’s business. Increasingly, however, declaratory judgement actions are filed to secure a more desirable venue in advance of a litigious competitor, or dreaded “patent troll.” For example, rather than await being added to the Lodsys dispute in the notoriously Patentee friendly Eastern District of Texas, Wolfram Research, The New York Times, and Foresee Results Inc all sought declaratory judgement of invalidity of the Lodsys patents in different federal district courts, namely, Wisconsin, Illinois and California.

For those prospective defendants seeking to utilize a DJ action to secure venue after the enactment of the America Invents Act, doing so will foreclose a later filed inter partes challenge (i.e., Inter Partes Review or Post Grant Review) at the USPTO.  …
Continue Reading Declaratory Judgement Less Attractive After Patent Reform?

Patent Reform & Inter Partes Review

Last week, I discussed some important changes to inter partes patent reexamination that will become effective immediately upon enactment of the patent reform legislation. Namely, that the standard for initiating inter partes reexamination will become stricter. The new standard is defined as: a reasonable likelihood that the requester would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the request. This new standard replaces the current standard that requires a Substantial New Question of Patentability (SNQ), perhaps within a matter of days.

Inter Partes Review will ultimately replace inter partes patent reexamination on the one year anniversary of the enactment of the patent reform legislation. Thus, the interim standard for the last year of inter partes patent reexamination will help the USPTO prepare to transition to the new Inter Partes Review proceeding, which will use the same standard.

Looking forward to Inter Partes Review, current litigation defendants will find themselves shut out from the USPTO with respect to a parallel inter partes proceeding unless they pursue matters before the one year anniversary.

…
Continue Reading Unwary Litigants to Lose USPTO Review Option Under Patent Reform