Procedures

Subscribe to Procedures

Unnecessarily Ambitious

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

Panel Dependency Reinforces Bad Behaviors

As discussed last October, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s (PTAB) lack of consistency in addressing attorney misbehavior is a growing problem. Whether PTAB panels are busy attending to statutory deadlines on their docket, or turning a blind eye to procedural squabbles to better focus on the merits, the end result is that attorney misbehavior remains largely unchecked.

Attorneys that practice in district courts would never disregard applicable local rules. And district court judges that author such would not allow their rules to be ignored. While some PTAB judges take similar ownership of their forum, such APJs are increasingly few and far between. As a result, the “it doesn’t hurt to try” philosophy is becoming the de facto rule on many aspects of PTAB procedure. …

Continue Reading The PTAB Needs Procedural Consistency

Estoppel Future Uncertain

As pointed out last month, the SCOTUS has sought the Solicitor General’s input in Apple et al., v. California Institute of Technology. If the case is taken up, the Court will consider limiting the scope of IPR estoppel to art that was included in the petition, and that art which reasonably could have been raised “during the IPR.”

At present, “reasonably could have raised” is assessed at the time the petition is drafted (i.e., what could have been included in the petition), not what could have been included in the later trial (which is effectively nothing). While it is far from certain whether the Court will take the case — let alone narrow estoppel— petitioners might still consider their stipulation wording until this dispute is settled.…

Continue Reading Sotera Stipulations to Haunt PTAB Petitioners?

In-Person Hearing are Back

This Thursday (Noon – 1PM(EST)), the next Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Boardside Chat webinar will be conducted to discuss plans to re-establish in-person PTAB hearings and tips from judges for successfully arguing in different environments (connect here)

Topics and speakers for this event include:

  • In-person options for
…

About Face Responsive to Mandamus Filing

I’ve pointed out a few times now that the IPR filings of OpenSky are inevitably doomed. There is just too much evidence of bad faith for there to be any other outcome. And as I also pointed, out the POP request has been pending since January, presumably awaiting the new Director to settle the issue. Today the POP Request was finally denied, strangely, in favor of a Director Review.

I know what you are thinking. “Wait a minute, there is Director Review of institution decisions? Since when!?”

Since a mandamus petition sent the agency scrambling to fix this constitutional infirmity.…

Continue Reading Director Review Now Possible For PTAB Institution Decisions?

New Internal Committee Structure to Appease Critics

Last week the PTAB announced a change to its internal handling of decisions. That is, while previously PTAB management reviewed certain decisions to ensure consistent treatment of relatively uncommon issues, that duty is now being passed to rank-and-file PTAB judges.

Why would anyone care about this (other than me), and why the change? Because the PTAB was plainly out-to-get innocent patent owners, that’s why!! …

Continue Reading PTAB Adjusts Internal Review Process

314(a) Practices Evolve

Discretionary denials of AIA trial petitions under 314(a) have fallen significantly over the past few months. But, Fintiv practices are not quite dead yet. As noted by IPWatchdog last week, although less frequent, occasional denials still occur.

Certainly the WDTX is no longer the silver bullet to the PTAB. That is, recent congressional inquiry asserting that its trail dates are suspect, has highlighted that the agency should expect to reach a decision before the Court. Yet, the agency should not expect petitioners to make that point in their filings.…

Continue Reading PTAB Fintiv Practices Need Reality Check

images_content_ptabstanding
Tillis/Hirono Demand Answers on OpenSky

Barely on the job for a week, Director Vidal is already being politically pressured to address a festering issue of patent policy.   That issue—the use of a recycled IPR petition as a means to collaterally attack large damage verdicts— is a self-inflicted wound for the agency.  The OpenSky business model wouldn’t exist absent the ill conceived expansion of discretionary denial practices under former Director Iancu.

Senator Tillis (a vocal supporter of Director Iancu) sent a letter to the agency this past Wednesday demanding answers….gotta love politics.
Continue Reading Senate Grows Impatient with PTAB

Delaware To Become Less Popular for NPEs?

This past Monday, Chief Judge Connolly of D. Del issued a standing order for all pending litigation before him requiring disclosure of certain financial relationships from litigating parties.  The information is due 30 days from filing of an initial pleading, and includes arrangements made between parties and third party funders.

While eminently sensible in terms of identifying true decision makers for settlement purposes, or identifying potential conflicts of interest, the new requirements will surely send NPEs screaming into the night.
Continue Reading Delaware Court Looks To Unmask Litigation Funders