This coming Thursday at 12PM (EST), IPWatchdog will host the free webinar entitled: PTAB Rules: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly. The webinar will cover the recent Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), preview stakeholder reactions, Congressional concerns, and discuss the most likely outcomes. Register (here)
With comments due from
Late last week the USPTO issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) that floated numerous rule proposals and requests for feedback — too numerous. Proposals addressing current 314(a) and 325(d) practices were not only expected, but long overdue. While these expected proposals were included in the sprawling Notice, the rule-making process will undoubtedly be bogged down by the remaining collection of controversial ideas and administrative over-reach.
Keep in mind that 314(a) Fintiv practices could soon be struck down as improper circumvention of APA rule-making. Stalling the issuance of those rules for at least another 12-18 months – if not longer – seems like a bad idea. My guess is political pressure from outside the agency led to the laundry list of additional proposals. Especially as they relate to for-profit entities in the wake of the Open Sky debacle.
Regardless, of how or why the expansive ANPRM came to be, I’ll walk through each proposal/idea in detail below (ANPRM here)
Continue Reading PTAB Rule Ideas – The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly
Back in November of 2021, the Northern District of California dismissed an APA lawsuit filed by a number of large companies seeking to challenge the PTAB’s NHK-Fintiv practices. At that time, I opined that the Court had overlooked some of the key APA arguments, and that the Federal Circuit would likely offer a more nuanced view. Yesterday, the Court, reversed-in-part and remanded for further consideration of the APA challenge.
Of particular interest, the Federal Circuit found that the APA challenge to the NHK-Fintiv practices (i.e., that such practices were unlawful absent notice and comment rulemaking) should not have been dismissed for lack of standing. While this may have been a very exciting development a year or so back, it is a bit anticlimactic in 2023.
The USPTO Director issued a precedential decision last month in Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc. that explained declarant testimony that merely repeats, verbatim, conclusory assertions of the petition (without citing additional evidence or providing technical reasoning), is to be given little weight. I didn’t find this determination to be blogworthy since this was how such testimony was being consistently treated by the Board.
What strikes me most about the decision was the need for the PTAB to have to emphasize such to the bar in the first place.
Patent infringement defendants seek IPR of patents asserted against them at the PTAB as an alternative to higher cost litigation. That is, a primary benefit of seeking IPR is the ability to seek a stay of the costlier district court action on the basis that the outcome of the IPR may moot the dispute through cancellation of the asserted claims, or at least greatly simplify the issues for trial.
Yet, not all patent litigation is initiated by patent owners. Often times a potential defendant will seek a Declaratory Judgment (DJ) to secure a favored district court forum in anticipation of an imminent litigation in a less favorable district (typically Texas)
Recently, the District of Delaware considered the impact of such proactive conduct on the typical IPR stay analysis.
IPR estoppel is defined by 35 U.S.C. 315(e). The statute recites in relevant part that any claim subject to a failed IPR may not be argued by that petitioner in an infringement action as “invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.” 315(e)(2)
While there has been much debate in the lower courts as to the scope of “reasonably could have raised,” and even “ground,” the debate currently before the SCOTUS in Apple et al., v. California Institute of Technology turns on the meaning of “during.” That is, whether “reasonably could have raised” is assessed at the time the petition is drafted, or, during the actual proceeding. If estoppel is determined at the outset of petition drafting that scope is far broader than what could be added to an ongoing IPR proceeding (i.e., next to nothing).
Should this question ultimately taken up, the outcome could have significant consequences.
A long time ago, in a galaxy, far, far away….the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) considered implementing a Markman style claim construction procedure it labeled a “Mini-Markman.” The idea, along with others was the result of a 2015-16 listening tour conducted by the agency under former USPTO Director Michelle Lee. The listening tour stopped at several locations across the U.S. to collect public feedback on AIA trial proceedings. The tour culminated in a draft rule package that contained a number of interesting ideas. Needless to say, that rule package was abandoned and never saw the light of day (for reasons unknown)
As we move into the new year and look forward to coming PTAB rule packages on discretionary denials and rehearing practices, I revisit this old idea in view of the never ending dialog on reforming the PTAB.
Patent Owners are not putting their best foot forward at the PTAB
Continue Reading Why Do Patent Owners Keep Making the Same PTAB Mistakes?
Remember the good ole days when every bar meeting had that Alice panel that said the same thing over and over? (i.e., “your guess is as good as mine”) And by good ole days, I mean the days when you skipped that panel and caught up on your emails back in your room. 🙂
Well, here we go again.
With American Axle failing to tempt the SCOTUS, the message has become clear….”Congress, this is your mess to fix.” So, we now embark on yet another adventure on sorting out the patent world’s biggest hairball – and that’s saying something!
This time last year, the Western District of Texas (WDTX) was getting a lot of attention from Washington DC policymakers. That is, a plaintiff’s ability to guarantee that its case would be heard by Judge Albright simply by filing in his Waco court was seen as “unseemly” and, coupled with the fact that his court had close to 30% of the nation’s patent docket, improper. Likewise, to many, the twenty or so successful mandamus filings reversing the Judge on issues of venue only amplified the urgency for legislative and/or judicial intervention.
Whether you agree with the above sentiment or not, it was clear as far back as last summer that these practices were plainly living on borrowed time. Back then, it was clear within DC policy circles that if the Judicial Conference did not step in and put an end to Judge Albright’s perceived monopoly on patent cases, that the legislators were prepared to take action.
Yesterday, the Chief Judge of the WDTX took action.