Post-Grant Review

Subscribe to Post-Grant Review via RSS

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?

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

PTAB Rejects Early Motions to Exclude as Improper

The Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) has begun issuing a steady stream of final written decisions in Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings. In these initial decisions, the Board is denying a significant number of improperly filed motions to exclude from both petitioners and patentees alike. Specifically, the Board is urging that a proper motion to exclude is not filed to: (1) challenge the sufficiency of the opposing parties evidence; (2) serve as a sur-reply; or (3) attack evidence raised in petitioner filings as being “new.” Instead, a proper motion to exclude must be keyed to an earlier made evidentiary objection.

While the PTAB is diligently educating the public on the proper motion practice in the initial wave of decisions, failure to heed the guidance in these initial decisions may result in attorney sanctions down the line.…

Continue Reading PTAB Explains Proper Role of Motions to Exclude

Post Grant CLE Tomorrow at USPTO

Just a reminder that the 9th Annual Advanced Patent Law Institute is underway at the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO. This two day program offers several post grant patent discussions tomorrow, including:  AIA Practice Tips Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; Post-Grant Proceedings, Strategies and Practice…

Statistics Demonstrate Staggering Demand for PTAB Patent Challenge Proceedings

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 January 9, 2014 the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) has received 810 IPR petitions and 108 CBM petitions…

CAFC

USPTO Appeals to Grow for CAFC

In 2013 the patent-challenging public took notice of the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) in a big way. With as many as 100 post-grant patent challenges being pursued per month at the PTAB, the unique considerations required to successfully navigate these proceedings from the PTAB on through…

PTAB Begins Front Loading IPR & CBM Schedules

The new patent challenge proceedings of the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) are instantly distinguishable from the previous examiner-based, patent reexamination—perhaps most notably in speed. That is, an Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR) or Covered Business Method (CBM) must conclude, by statute, within 12 months of institution. This turnaround is a dramatic improvement over the 3-5 year pendencies that plagued patent reexamination. For this reason, the PTAB has been a major disruption to the business of patent licensing and assertion in the U.S; especially to that of the dreaded “patent troll.”

For patentees faced with a PTAB post grant challenge it’s only getting worse. As of mid-December, the PTAB has accelerated trial schedules so that oral argument is scheduled a mere 7 months from trial institution. This is a full two months earlier than the previous default schedule.…

Continue Reading PTAB Accelerates Post Grant Trial Schedules by Two Months

CAFC Considers Article III Injury Requirement for Dissatisfied Patent Challengers

Earlier this week, the CAFC heard oral arguments in Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (Warf). Although seemingly a routine appeal from an inter partes patent reexamination, the Court took interest in the unique procedural posture of this case a few weeks before argument on the merits. Here, the challenged claims of the patent were confirmed as patentable by the USPTO and appealed by the challenger, Consumer Watchdog, to the CAFC. The CAFC ordered late briefing on the question of Article III standing for CW’s appeal. CW brief (here), WARF brief (here)

For simple folk like me, the question of standing would seem to have a relatively straight forward response. That is, appeal from a PTAB decision is provided, by statute (old 35 U.S.C. § 315 (b)(1), to any party dissatisfied with a decision of the PTAB. This appeal right was actually added in 2002 as the original inter partes reexamination passed in 1999 had no such right. Section 13106 of Public Law 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758, 1899-1906 (2002). So, not only was standing conveyed by Congress, it was conveyed only after denying it in the first legislative go-round. (fact pattern seems rather persuasive to me)

While the CAFC was well aware of the statute, they seemed to be seeking more of an “injury” from the appellant to convey Article II standing, or some kind of indication in the legislative history that Congress intended to convey Article III standing.…

Continue Reading CAFC Requests USPTO/Gov’t Weigh In On Third Party Standing for Appeals From PTAB

Patentees Squeezed Between Competing PTAB Rules

The rules of the new patentability trials of the America Invents Act (AIA) are designed to ensure timely resolution of patentability disputes within the statutorily mandated 12 month time frame. In particular, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) fashioned their new rules to prevent the notorious delays and complications of the previous inter partes patent reexamination system. One way in which the new AIA post grant proceedings are vastly different from the previous inter partes patent reexamination model is the manner in which claim amendments may be proposed.

In the previous inter partes reexamination system, any number of amended claims could be added or submitted prior to the close of prosecution before the examiner. There was no numerical limit on the number of claims that could be submitted. In fact, it was not uncommon practice for patentees to submit hundreds of new claims. By doing so, patentees made it more difficult for the third party to respond to all issues within their 30 day period, and within page limits. Likewise, the addition of such extensive amendments made examiner/APJ processing all the more tedious and time consuming.

In the new AIA proceedings, Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post Grant Review, the PTAB provides for a reasonable number of substitute claims. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121/221. The “reasonable” aspect has been explained as a one-to-one correspondence in the typical case. Further restricting the ability to amend is the requirement that amendments be presented within the bounds of a 15 page motion to amend. The combination of these controls strictly limits the ability of patentees to amend in any significant regard, which greatly aids the agency in completing the proceedings in a timely manner.

Yet, patentees argue that these strictly enforced procedural controls are inconsistent with the patentee estoppel that attaches to a failed PTAB proceeding.…

Continue Reading Are Strict PTAB Amendment Practices Inconsistent with Patentee Estoppel?

Proposed Change to USPTO Claim Construction Practice Will Moot Markman Debates

One of the issues being debated in the current round of patent reform efforts is the current use of the broadest reasonable claim interpretation (BRI) in USPTO post grant patent proceedings. The rationale for this “broadest” interpretation practice of the USPTO has long been the ability to amend patent claims before the agency. That is — patent claims should be interpreted broadly in a forum where claim scope can be freely adjusted by the patentee (intervening rights aside).

Since the passage of the America Invents Act (AIA), a small, but vocal minority of bar association honchos (primarily those employed by large patent filers) have been shortsightedly advancing the notion that BRI should not be employed in the patent challenge proceedings of the AIA (Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post Grant Review (PGR)). Instead, they argue that BRI claim construction should be replaced with the claim construction practices of the district court (i.e., Philips v. AWH). Their premise is that the new AIA proceedings are more “adjudicative in nature” as compared to examiner based patent prosecution/reexamination practices. Currently, the proposed legislation is adopting these changes for IPR and PGR proceedings (CBM is excluded).

As can be appreciated, large patent filers believe a narrower claim construction at the USPTO will help preserve the patentability of their patents that become subject to post grant patent challenges. Yet, in practice, if this change is implemented, it will have little impact on post grant proceedings. In fact, insisting that the USPTO perform the same analysis as district courts may help invalidate more patents.
Continue Reading Changing USPTO Claim Construction Practices to Short Circuit Patent Litigation