Post-Grant Review

Subscribe to Post-Grant Review via RSS

Stays Pending IPR Granted in Most Cases

Prior to the passage of the America Invents Act (AIA) many district courts were less than impressed with the lengthy pendencies of USPTO patent reexamination proceedings. 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. 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.
…
Continue Reading District Courts Increasingly Await PTAB Decision

New Guidelines Follow Alice & Ultramercial Decisions

Today the USPTO will publish their new subject matter eligibility guidelines (35 U.S.C. § 101). A copy from the advanced reading room is available (here). While directed to examination procedures, the guidelines will  also be applicable to Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Covered Business Method (CBM) Challenge…

Multiple Factors Drive Downtrend in Amendments at PTAB

Post-issuance amendment of patents has never been popular among patentees. This is because such amendments typically trigger an intervening rights defense that bars the collection of past damages from accused infringers. That is, if the amended or new claim is not substantially identical in scope relative to a previously issued claim, potential infringers of the amended/new claims are provided with an absolute and/or equitable intervening rights defense (35 U.S.C. § 252). For this reason, historically, patentees would rarely amend claims at the USPTO that were asserted in a co-pending litigation.

This calculus changed somewhat with the introduction of the post-grant trial proceedings of the America Invents Act (AIA).

Unlike, the previous patent challenge mechanism, patent reexamination, the new administrative patentability trials are faster — much faster. This increase in speed undermines the previous “war of attrition” model. Patentees can no longer shrug off a patent challenge at the USPTO on the basis that it will never finish in time to matter. Now, at the PTAB, the choice between amending or not is effectively a choice between losing the patent altogether and living to fight another day. Moreover, with the ability to file a contingent amendment (i.e., an amendment not considered unless the original claims are deemed unpatentable) there would appear to be even more reason to “hedge” one’s bet.

For these reasons, amendment at the PTAB was sought in many of the earliest IPR filings. Since that time, however, patentees have reverted to old habits.

…
Continue Reading Amendment Efforts at PTAB Trend Downward

Board Sanctions Patentee in IPR Proceedings

37 C.F.R. § 42.12 provides that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) the power to sanction parties. The Board  has been reluctant to officially sanction parties given the relative newness of the AIA trial proceedings. The power to sanction parties was only been even alluded to in a handful of cases — which is typically enough. To my knowledge, the Board had yet to officially sanction a party. And then last week, a Patentee came along and pretty much volunteered to be the first.

In SAP America v. Lakshmi Arunachalam (IPR2014-00413, 00414) the pro se patentee appears to have challenged the impartiality of one of the assigned Administrative Patent Judges (APJ) based upon their mutual fund holdings (presumably accessed by a FOIA filing — all PTAB judges fill out a financial disclosure form every year). In doing so, the Patentee uploaded some documents to the Patent Review Processing System (PRPS) that were not only unauthorized, but were quite offensive. Similar statements were put on a web page, along with others accusing quite a few district court and CAFC judges of similar misdeeds.
…
Continue Reading PTAB Sanctions Patentee For Provocative Filings

2014 CLE Year Comes to a Close

The PatentsPostGrant.com free monthly webinar series has concluded for 2014, but will resume in January 2015. Yet, there remains at least one option for those a few credits short of their 2014 continuing legal education (CLE) requirements. Next Monday, I will host the Strafford Legal webinar entitled: Evolving PTAB Trial…

Review of PTAB Trial Orders Debated by CAFC

In recent weeks, the CAFC has twice considered whether or not the trial orders of the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) become appealable once a final written decision is issued. First, on November 3, 2014, the CAFC heard arguments directed to this issue in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC. The Cuozzo appeal stemmed from the very first Inter Partes Review (IPR) ever filed. Cuozzo appealed the Board’s determination of unpatentability and argued that the IPR never should have been instituted in the first place. This past Wednesday in an appeal stemming from  the very first CBM filed, Versata Development Group v. SAP America, Inc, a similar threshold argument was made to the Court.

Can the CAFC consider an otherwise nonappealable PTAB trial order in reviewing a final written decision?
…
Continue Reading CAFC Considers Justiciability of PTAB Appeal Issues

October Brings 195 AIA Patent Challenge Petitions to PTAB

Post-grant, patent challenge mechanisms of the America Invents Act (AIA) continue to surge in popularity. Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Covered Business Method (CBM) patent challenges have been pouring into the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB). Last month, the Board received an astounding 195 petitions, surpassing the previous high water mark of 190 set in June of this year.
Continue Reading Record AIA Petitions Filed with PTAB in October

Trial Section Outpaces PTAB Average

As discussed previously, the PTAB is experiencing a filing rate of 150+ AIA trial petitions per month (184 last month alone). This includes petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR) and Covered Business Method challenges (CBM). The Board’s Trial Section could see between 1800- 2500 petitions this year alone —  if not more as PGR ramps up. Of those filings that reach a final written decision (60% or more) it  is expected that upward of 60+% of those will include a rehearing request of that decision from one side or both. That is, a significant amount of “re-work” on top of the growing AIA trial workload. Given the statutory deadline on the active docket items, which would not apply to rehearing requests of final written decisions (i.e., statutory clock stops at final written decision), these requests may see a much lower Board priority relative to the growing pile of time sensitive matters. In such a scenario, the overall pendency to a final CAFC resolution will be correspondingly extended.

The good news is that …so far…the Trial Section is outpacing historical rehearing pendencies of ex parte prosecution and reexamination appeals.
Continue Reading Impact of Requests for Rehearing on Overall IPR Pendency

Rehearing Requests & CAFC Remands to Tax PTAB Resources

As discussed on Tuesday, sometimes the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) will find it necessary to remand an appeal to the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB). Likewise, sometimes the Solicitor will seek remand in appropriate circumstances. Historically remand occurs in about 10-15% of appeals from the agency on a yearly basis (sometimes less). In any given year this meant only a handful of cases required “re-work” from the PTAB as the number of appeals from the PTAB to the CAFC was relatively modest.

As to requests for rehearing, the Board sees some volume of requests in patent reexamination proceedings, especially inter partes reexamination. Yet, given the lengthy pendency of such reexamination proceedings, a fair amount of these appeals are avoided. Or, are at least not as hotly contested after the the requesting party settles, which was common. 

Thanks to the wildly popular post-grant patent challenge mechanisms of the America Invents Act (AIA), all of that is about to change.

…
Continue Reading Backflow To Add to Growing PTAB Workload

Debate Over Issue Joinder Continues

Back in September, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a rare expanded panel Order in Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp., (IPR2014-00508) (here). In the Order, a divided panel denied issue joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) as a matter of law (i.e., the joining of two petitions of a same petitioning party). The decision was especially surprising given the fact that 315(c) had been previously interpreted by the PTAB as permitting such joinder practices. In fact, one such decision Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., IPR2012-00026, Paper 17, Dec. 21, 2012 is published on the PTO web site as a representative order.

Since the decision in Target, rehearing has been requested, and other petitioners have begun to assail the PTAB’s perceived change in course on the matter of issue joinder.
Continue Reading PTAB “Target Practice”