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 November 7, 2013 the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) has received 627 IPR petitions and 78 CBM petitions
Generally speaking, inter partes patent reexamination was pursued relatively infrequently by foreign based entities. Unlike their U.S. based counterparts, foreign based companies rarely employed patent reexamination as a tool to resolve patent disputes in a more cost effective manner, and/or to pressure opponents in a parallel litigation. This phenomena was especially odd for Japanese innovators. This is because many of the top ten patent filers are Japanese companies. Clearly these companies were familiar with USPTO proceedings, but remained uncomfortable with the USPTO as a source of potential resolution for patent validity disputes.
Since the passage of the new patentability challenges of the America Invents Act (AIA), the public has overwhelmingly embraced Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings as a viable option to traditional patent limitation—and, unlike inter partes patent reexamination, Japanese innovators are not far behind.
Continue Reading Japanese Innovators Begin to Embrace PTAB Challenges for Patent Dispute Resolution
Non-registered practitioners may, in limited circumstances, be permitted to appear before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) on a pro hac vice basis. 37 C.F.R § 42.10(c). Previously, in IPR (IPR2013-00010) (order here), the requirements for the motion and accompanying declaration were outlined.
As
Patent indemnification provisions are a fixture of modern contractual agreements for the exchange of technological goods. The indemnification clause, whether express or introduced by default via the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), essentially warrants that the contracted goods are free from claims of patent infringement. In the event of a claim of patent infringement, the indemnity clause obligates the Seller/Supplier to defend against the claim in some manner, typically funding the defense, or taking over responsibility for the defense effort.
While the body of law pertaining to contractual interpretation has remained largely unchanged in recent years, the passage of the America Invents Act (AIA) has altered the landscape as to patent defense practices. In particular, the battle against the dreaded patent troll has shifted more toward the post grant patent challenge proceedings of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB). Since many multi-defendant disputes are shifting to the PTAB for resolution it is imperative that indemnitors account for this eventuality in their contractual agreements.
Continue Reading Recalibrating Indemnity Obligations To Account for New Post Grant Patent Realities
One of the biggest misconceptions about the new patentability challenges of the America Invents Act (AIA) is the notion that these administrative trial proceedings are somehow analogous to district court litigation — nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, the new AIA proceedings simply skip over the previous patent reexamination examiner phase and go straight to the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) phase, with a very limited opportunity for expert depositions along the way.
While it is certainly true that Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR) and the Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings are “trials,” these PTAB trials are governed by their own unique procedures, and are almost exclusively conducted on paper. As is made clear from the 12 months of proceedings to date, discovery practice is quite limited for these trials since they are based on documentary evidence only (i.e., patents and printed publications).
Looking at the top 5 IPR petition drafting mistakes, it is not surprising that most stem from the failure to recognize the key differences between PTAB and district court proceedings.
Today marks the one year anniversary of the new patent challenge mechanisms of the America Invents Act (AIA). Over the past few months there have been many noteworthy rulings in the 550+ Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings and 50+ Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings. This week, I will look at the rulings that helped shape post grant practice before the PTAB over the first year. Today we start at the beginning with formal petition practice. Later this week, I will look at other phases of the proceeding, up to the time of oral argument such as effective petition practices, motion practice, joinder practice, and requests for additional discovery. While these rules and best practices are certain to evolve further, the PTAB’s decisions over the past year provide invaluable guidance far beyond that provided in the statute, legislative history, rules and notices.
The first step in any IPR, CBM or PGR proceeding is the preparation and filing of the petition.
Continue Reading Top 5 Reasons for Non-Compliant IPR Petitions
As we head to the end of the summer months, many of the first patentability trials of the AIA are maturing for decision. Going forward, the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) will face a growing number of these oral hearings, also the surge of inter partes patent reexamination filings made last September will also be headed to the Board for decision. At last week’s Patent Public Advicory Committee (PPAC) meeting, the PTAB reported on the progress of their workload, and their plans for staffing up in anticipation of the coming reexamination surge.
It seems Congress has chosen to ignore the significant impact the America Invents Act (AIA) has had on pure patent enforcement entities. There is simply no other rationale to explain why a new patent reform bill is contemplated by Congress near every week. While there will always be
It’s hard to believe that it has only been 10 months since September 16, 2012. On that date, the new patent challenge proceedings of the America Invents Act (AIA) first became available. Since that day 400+ petions for trial (IPR and CBM) have been filed with the
The Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) has the power to terminate an Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR), or Transitional Proceeding for Covered Business Method Patents (CBM) upon request of the parties. This discretionary power to terminate a patentability challenge by agreement (37 C.F.R. § 42.74) is a new concept for the USPTO. Historically reexamination proceedings could not be terminated by agreement. In reexaminations (inter partes) where the contesting parties settled their dispute, the challenging party would simply drop out of the inter partes reexamination, but the Office would continue with the reexamination in the interests of public policy. (cf. terminating an inter partes patent reexamination by operation of estoppel).
The PTAB greatly benefits from the ability to terminate post grant patent proceedings. This is because Board resources can be moved away from post grant proceedings that are no longer commercially relevant (at least as to the present parties) to those newly initiated, and there are plenty of them. Likewise, the ability to settle seems to encourage resolution of disputes as roughly 30 IPRs and CBMs have settled to date. But, some would argue that the public is left holding the bag for suspect patents that escape cancellation by operation of a private settlement.
While it is true that another challenger could come along and pick up where the last left off, such would be at a significant cost— AND the public would essentially be paying the USPTO twice for the same proceeding. Yet, there is a far better solution to this problem already on the books, one that would still allow the Board to free up judicial bandwidth.
Continue Reading Public Policy vs. PTAB Post Grant Settlements