Reexamination

Subscribe to Reexamination via RSS

USPTO Releases Petition Timelines

The Office of Petitions has launched a new USPTO Patents Petitions Timeline that provides information on petition types that can be filed throughout each stage of the patent prosecution, and reexamination process. For each petition type, users can easily access information on average pendency over the past 12 months of decided petitions, the deciding office, petition grant rates, and link to specific sections of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) or other parts of the USPTO website that relate to each petition type. (here)

Given the pro forma nature of many prosecution related petitions, of most interest are the more unusual filings, such as petitions to revive abandoned applications.

Of perhaps the greatest interest is the pendency information pertaining to petitions filed during patent reexamination. I have often referred to this practice as the “black arts” as such practice is fraught with uncertainty, and pendency can be quite significant.
Continue Reading Pendency Statistics on Petitions Filed During Patent Reexamination

Functional Aspect of Structural Term Overlooked

Yesterday, in Power Integrations, Inc., v. Lee (CAFC 2015) the Court considered the rejection of claims 1, and 17-19 of  U.S Patent 6,249,876. Reexamination of the ‘876 patent was initiated by the USPTO in 2006 at the request of Fairchild Semiconductor. At issue in the reexamination (and in a parallel infringement action) was the meaning of the claim terminology  “coupled to.” The Patentee insisted that this terminology had both a functional and structural meaning. On appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI — Now the PTAB), affirmed the examiner’s rejection of the claims. In doing so, the Board appeared to focus only on the structural aspect of the disputed claim terminology.

The CAFC reversed and remanded finding that the Board’s focus on the structural aspects of the disputed claim terminology to be “red herring.”  

…
Continue Reading CAFC Finds PTAB Claim Analysis Incomplete Relative to Markman

Misguided STRONG Act Would Undo Years of AIA Progress

Well, if you expected the Goodlatte Bill to sail through the House for swift passage through the Senate, forget about it. Hill chatter has indicated that the significant House support of the Bill has diminished since the last vote in 2013 (and rightfully so given the events of the past year). Perhaps of greater threat to the patent reform effort , however, is yesterday’s introduction of the “STRONG Act” on the Senate side (here), which makes clear that further patent reform is far from guaranteed for 2015. 

The STRONG Act, or “Support Technology and Research for Our Nation’s Growth Patents Act of 2015” removes the controversial fee shifting provision of the Goodlatte Bill (a key point of contention in past battles). More importantly, the Senate Bill adds a multitude of proposed changes to AIA trial proceedings that will have patent abusers dancing in the streets —the Bill is more aptly titled the “Support Trolls & Reverse Our Nation’s Progress under the AIA Act of 2015.” 

While this legislative grenade may not have much chance ever seeing the light of day, it is surprising that such misguided proposals would be seriously offered in the first instance.
…
Continue Reading Senate Democrats Propose Bill to Gut AIA Trials

Requests for Comment Touch Upon Claim Construction Standards at the PTAB

Back in June, the USPTO issued a Request For Information (RFI) in the Federal Register. The Notice, entitled, Request for Comments on Trial Proceedings Under the America Invents Act Before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board posed 17 questions for consideration by those stakeholders involved in the patent challenge proceedings of the America Invents Act (AIA). Responses are due to the USPTO on September 16th, and, will be considered by the agency for the purpose of optimizing AIA trial proceedings going forward.

Over the next two weeks, I will explore the issues driving these queries as well as proposals for resolving problem areas. First up, is the question directed to claim construction, that is:

1. Under what circumstances, if any, should the Board decline to construe a claim in an unexpired patent in accordance with its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears?…
Continue Reading The PTAB Cannot Adopt a Phillips Claim Analysis for AIA Trial Proceedings

Court Declines Review of Finality Issue

The CAFC first considered the validity of Baxter International’s U.S. Patent 5,247,434 (the ‘434 patent) on appeal from a patent infringement litigation with Fresenius. In that first 2009 appeal (now commonly referred to as Fresenius I), the Court upheld the patent over certain prior art. After Fresenius I, the litigation dispute went back to the district court on a damages related remand.

Meanwhile, in May 2012 a patent reexamination proceeding initiated by Fresenius in 2007 made its way to the CAFC. The reexamination was based on much the same prior art as previously considered in Fresenius I. This time, the CAFC affirmed the determination of the PTAB (then BPAI) that the claims were obvious over the applied prior art applying the more liberal standards for USPTO challenges. En banc review was then sought, but declined by the CAFC. A petition of certiorari on the seemingly conflicting results was also pursued, but denied by the Supreme Court.

Thereafter, Fresenius II made it’s way to the CAFC to determine whether the outstanding damage award of the district court was enforceable in light of the CAFC’s decision in In re Baxter (2012). The CAFC held that since the damage award was not yet final, it was essentially voided by the cancellation of the patent in reexamination. Once again, en banc review was sought, and denied by the CAFC, last summer. A second petition for certiorari was then pursued for Fresenius II. This most recent petition was denied today, finally ending the dispute.

Given the high court’s lack of interest in Fresenius I, which more squarely presented the issue of seemingly conflicting final results, it is not at all surprising…
Continue Reading Supreme Court Once Again Passes on Fresenius Patent Reexamination Result

Stringent PTAB Amendment Process to Drive Patent Reissue Filings

As discussed previously, patent owners continue to struggle with the motion-based amendment requirements of the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB). In recent months, patentees subject to Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Covered Business Method (CBM) challenges have begun exploring alternative USPTO avenues for presenting amendments. In particular, patentees are following the advice of the PTAB and initiating patent reissue and reexamination proceedings.

Patentees generally find patent reexamination more attractive than patent reissue. This is due to the special dispatch accorded a patent reexamination, the relatively narrow scope of prior art review, and insulation from 112 and 101 issues. However, as made clear recently, patent reissue may be the only escape for patentees struggling at the PTAB.…

Continue Reading Patent Reissue as an Alternative to PTAB Amendment Practice

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

Court Denies Second Request to Revisit Controversial Case

The CAFC first considered the validity of Baxter International’s U.S. Patent 5,247,434 (the ‘434 patent) on appeal from a patent infringement litigation with Fresenius. In that first appeal (now commonly referred to as Fresenius I), the Court found the patent not invalid over certain prior art in 2009. After Fresenius I, the litigation dispute went back to the district court on a damages related remand.

Meanwhile, in May 2012 a patent reexamination that was filed by Fresenius USA Inc. in 2007 made its way to the CAFC. The reexamination was based on much the same prior art as previously considered in Fresenius I. This time, the CAFC affirmed the determination of the BPAI that the claims were obvious over the applied prior art applying the more liberal standards for USPTO challenges. En banc review was then sought, but declined in the Baxter reexamination appeal.

Thereafter, Fresenius II made it’s way to the CAFC to determine whether the outstanding damage award was enforceable in light of the CAFC’s decision in In re Baxter. The CAFC held that as the damage award was not yet final, it was essentially erased by the cancellation of the patent in reexamination, and once again, en banc review was sought last summer.
Continue Reading CAFC Denies En Banc Review in Fresenius II

No-Cause Extensions Available for Patent Owner/Director Initiated Post Grant Patent Proceedings

Tucked away in last week’s Federal Register Notice is a significant change to patent reexamination/supplemental examination procedures at the USPTO. Currently, any extension of time sought in an ex parte patent reexamination (the only type of patent reexamination still in existence) requires a show…