Patent Trial & Appeal Board

Subscribe to Patent Trial & Appeal Board via RSS

IPR…Not Just For Trolls

With Congress on the verge of passing still more legislation directed at alleviating the dreaded “patent troll” problem, perhaps Congress should pause to consider what has already been accomplished over the last 18+ months. As pointed at by Gene Quinn at IPwatchdog last week, Congress is in a rush to pass further patent reform legislation in the name of “helping Main Street America.” Yet, since September 16, 2012 the America Invents Act (AIA) has been wildly successful in providing a cheaper, faster, low cost alternative to patent litigation. Inter Partes Review (IPR) in particular has become the favorite anti-troll measure.

Typically, an IPR is pursued against the subject patent so that a stay of the costlier litigation can be obtained. Depending upon the jurisdiction/judge involved, the ability to stay a litigation pending USPTO review has increased significantly since the passage of the AIA. While this change in landscape is welcome news for those battling trolls, IPR is equally concerning for those patentees considered to be true technology innovators.
Continue Reading Medical Technology Patents at the PTAB

PTAB Breaks 1000 Threshold for CBM and IPR Filings

Last week, the USPTO issued the official tallies/progress statistics for Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR) and the Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings. As of March 6, 2014 the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) has received 924 IPR petitions and 127 CBM petitions, …

NDCA vs. EDTX

Prior to the passage of the America Invents Act (AIA) many district courts were less than impressed with the lenghty pendencies of patent reexamination proceedings at the USPTO. For this reason, motions to stay a litigation pending patent reexamination were often denied based upon the perceived prejudice of a 5-6 year delay (typical of reexaminations through appeal). The patent challenge proceedings of the AIA (IPR, CBM and PGR) were specifically designed, at least in part, to remedy the pendency issue.

The new patent challenge proceedings of the AIA are conducted before the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) and must conclude, by statute, within 12 months of trial order. (There is a provision allowing for 18 month schedules in exceptional cases but the PTAB has yet to avail themselves of that exception). Many districts across the country have recognized the improved speed of the PTAB. Not surprisingly, the success rate for staying cases pending USPTO review has significantly improved.

That said, there are still significant differences of opinion on the PTAB —across districts, and even across judges of a same district. …
Continue Reading PTAB Perceptions Vary Across District Courts

Time to Adapt - Clock

Refusal to Stay Pending CBM Unusual

Last week I discussed the creation of a “Track B” docket by the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) and explained how this docket could force some defendants away from the more cost effective alternatives of the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB). On the heels of the Track B announcement, the Court issued a second denial of a stay of the patent dispute between VirtualAgility Inc., v. Salesforce.com Inc., et al. (here) pending PTAB review. In this case, a Covered Business Method (CBM) challenge was filed against the patent at issue. By way of reminder, CBM is the proceeding created by Congress that does all but mandate a stay pending CBM…..at least outside of Texas.
Continue Reading Is The Eastern District of Texas Thwarting the America Invents Act?

EDTX Judge Davis Announces New, Faster “Track B” for Patent Cases

Last week, Chief Judge Leonard Davis of the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) issued an Order (here) creating a second, Track B for patent cases. Track B as the name implies establishes a different, accelerated track as compared to the typical EDTX schedule (Track A). Litigants may opt for Track B by agreement, or be selected for such by the court. Track B is designed to reduce costs by accelerating milestones and limiting certain filing and discovery practices. These same concepts are expressed in many of the proposals of the pending patent reform legislation. The judiciary has been rather vocal on opposing the various proposals floating around Congress on issues of district court case management. While the goal of Track B is to resolve disputes sooner with less cost to litigants, the timing also suggests a deliberate amplification of the judiciary’s position.

To be sure, the proactive efforts of the judiciary to reduce time and expense of litigation are greatly welcomed, and the EDTX effort is to be applauded for taking the lead. Yet, based upon the dynamics of what is going on in the world of patent assertion post America Invents Act (AIA), the EDTX Track B docket could aid certain non-practicing entities that were only recently left for dead.…

Continue Reading Could Track B Scheduling in EDTX Benefit Patent Trolls?

Board to Host Overview of Operations

Wednesday, February 26th, the USPTO will host a program entitled “State of the PTAB” at their new Silicon Valley location. The program will cover an overview of the PTAB, Board growth — past and planned, day in the life of a judge, and training for new judges. While primarily…

Patentees Fail to Adjust to Motion Practice

As final written decisions in Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings begin to issue from the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB), it is clear that patentees have yet to master the process of amending their patents in these new proceedings. The primary disconnect appears to be the failure of patentees to recognize that an amendment in a PTAB proceeding is proposed by motion; an amendment is not entered as a matter of right.

Unless prosecution has been closed in the examination of a patent application or patent reexamination, a patent applicant/patentee is free to present virtually any number and character of claim amendments supported by their specification. Outside of the prohibition against broadening, or amendments relating to a patentably distinct inventions, a patent applicant/patentee is not required to do much else but present their new claims for examination. On the other hand, a motion to amend before the PTAB requires the movant (i.e., patentee) to demonstrate entitlement to the requested relief. This demonstration requires more than most patentees are accustomed to providing the USPTO.

Continue Reading Amendment Missteps Before the PTAB

The Applicability of Prosecution History in a BRI Analysis

Whether in a new patent application or in an issued patent being subject to a post grant review proceeding, the USPTO utilizes a Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) standard for all patent claims. Under this one-size-fits-all standard a patent claim is construed consistent with the accompanying patent specification from the perspective of one skilled in the relevant art.

Although applied in post grant proceedings, BRI was developed as an examination expedient for patent examiners to protect the public notice function of newly minted patent claims. That is, since no property rights exist at the time of patent application, a pure BRI analysis properly ignores the developing intrinsic record as a guide to claim meaning (i.e., prosecution history) in favor of claim amendment practices. However, once an issued patent returns to the USPTO for a post grant analysis, consideration of prosecution history as intrinsic evidence is more of a mixed bag—especially when before examiners steeped in traditional BRI practices (e.g., reexamination, reissue, supplemental examination).

Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has sent the USPTO Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) seemingly conflicting messages on the use of prosecution history during post grant proceedings.…

Continue Reading Prosecution History Before the PTAB….Your Mileage May Vary

Evidence of Petitioner Control Critical for PTAB Privity Finding

Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) a petitioner, real party-in-interest, or privy of the petitioner must seek Inter Partes Review (IPR) within 12 months of service of a complaint for patent infringement. In an attempt to dodge some IPR filings as time barred, patentees are urging the USPTO Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) to adopt an expansive interpretation of privy. That is, since parties are often time embroiled in patent suits at different times, expanding the 12 month window to encompass the first filed suit could insulate many patentees from dreaded IPR challenges.

As detailed previously, in Atlanta Gas Light Company v. Bennett Regulator Guards Inc., (IPR2013-00453, Paper 31, January 22, 2014), the PTAB agreed that the existence of an indemnification agreement was probative of the opportunity for control by a supplier of a customer petitioner. However, the PTAB is seeking more than the mere existence of an agreement, but instead, hard evidence of control.…

Continue Reading Lack of PTAB Discovery to Shift Privity Question to District Courts