Uncategorized

Subscribe to Uncategorized via RSS
oldway
Expansion of ITC Domestic Industry Coupled with PTAB Immunity = Greater ITC Appeal

Since Ebay v. MercExchange in 2006, patentees have lamented the practical loss of injunctions in most patent litigation. In the 20 years since, neither the courts nor Congress have shown any interest in revisiting or recalibrating Ebay. Of course, patent infringement complainants before the International Trade Commission (ITC) have always been guaranteed a form of special injunctive relief (exclusion orders), but the ITC’s “domestic industry” jurisdiction has always been construed narrowly by the agency. Given the limited jurisdiction, despite the desirable form of relief, ITC proceedings have been far less common than traditional district court litigation.

Last week, however, the Federal Circuit rejected the ITC’s longstanding and narrow view of domestic industry, potentially opening its doors to a far greater percentage of patentees. Independently, the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) also withdrew its Biden-era discretionary guidance last week, which prevented discretionary denials under 314(a) on IPR petitions co-pending with an ITC action. The upshot of these near simultaneous developments is that the ITC is now available to a greater number of patentees, at a time when filing at the ITC may also effectively guarantee immunity from PTAB review.

That is a one-two-punch that no plaintiff-friendly Texas court can rival. Continue Reading Did Injunctions Just Make a Return to U.S. Patent Litigation?

roadsigns
FWD Boilerplate Encourages Rework

Rule 42.73 (d)(3)(i) explains that a Patent Applicant or a Patent Owner is precluded from taking action inconsistent with a claim cancellation, including, obtaining in any patent a claim that is not patentably distinct from a finally refused or cancelled claim (IPR/PGR/reexam). Last week the Federal Circuit clarified the scope of this rarely applied PTAB rule in SoftView v. Apple.

In practice, the agency has very rarely applied Rule 42.73. Examiners don’t appear to be aware of the rule when prosecuting continuation filings or reexamination/reissues. To my knowledge there has been no examiner training and there are no MPEP insert paragraphs. And PTAB judges prefer to re-apply the art used to cancel the earlier claims over a less familiar estoppel analysis.

Far more troubling, however, is the PTAB practice of suggesting to Patent Owners that they may obtain new/amended claims after claim cancellation in an IPR/PGR through patent reexamination or reissue. Continue Reading CAFC Backs Patent Owner Estoppel – PTAB Should Stop Suggesting Otherwise

images_content_BRI-PTAB-1-275x188

Critical U.S Industry Depends on the PTAB – Not China

The so-called PREVAIL Act (here) was floated some weeks back to “to ensure the United States does not cede technological supremacy to our foreign competitors and adversaries.” As the accompanying materials insist, fighting China is the rationale behind the bill’s proposed patent reforms. That is, the U.S. Patent system must be made stronger to rival the Chinese threat by weakening the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB).

If this “stronger patents” argument sounds familiar, it should. Before its reinvention as the Prevail Act, the same “litigation first” ideas were packaged to the American public as the so-called Stronger Patents Act. But, the “Stronger” Bill went absolutely nowhere despite being introduced every year for the past six years (maybe 7, I lost count).

Not surprisingly, increasing patent litigation expense and unnecessary liability for successful U.S companies in the name of “stronger patents” didn’t resonate on the Hill. This is because the America Invents Act (AIA), which created PTAB trial was passed into law a little more than a decade ago for the purpose of reducing wasteful litigation over improvidently issued patents— and is working exactly as intended. Few legislators (aside from sponsors) were interested in a proposal to effectively repeal the AIA. So, after years of failure, this perennially failed effort has been newly-minted as the PREVAIL Act.

While the new spin also argues for stronger patents, it presents the need as a necessary tool to “prevail” against the growing technological threat from communist China. Ironically, the blatant dishonesty of this new spin only serves to highlight the critical importance of the PTAB to U.S. interests.Continue Reading The Prevail Act – Harm U.S. Industry to Fight China?

images_content_Intrinsicrecord-1-275x206

Burden on Proponent of Affirmative Defense

Back in 2016 district courts started encountering infringement suits where the subject patents had survived PTAB challenge. In such scenarios, estoppel applied to failed petitioners under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). To asses whether invalidity defenses asserted in the later court case should be estopped as arguments that “reasonably could have been raised” in the failed IPRs, the courts needed to determine whether the newly asserted art could have been located by a reasonably skilled searcher at IPR filing. But, 325(e)(2) is silent as to which party bears the burden of proof on this issue of estoppel.

That is, does the Patent Challenger have to show that it could not have found the art with reasonable diligence, or, does the Patent Owner have to show that art could have been found with reasonable diligence?

Most courts held that since estoppel was an affirmative defense, the burden fell on the proponent patent owner. Today, in a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit agreed.Continue Reading PTAB Estoppel Proof Falls to Patent Owners

PTAB Reform Act of 2022

Back in September of 2021, the “Restoring the America Invents Act” was released by Senators Leahy (D-VT) and Cornyn (R-TX). The bill sought to reverse virtually every PTAB development of the Iancu administration. At the time, I outlined my thoughts on the various provisions, and predicted the most controversial—from a bio/pharma perspective— would serve as cannon fodder.

Last week, a revised bill reemerged entitled the “PTAB Reform Act of 2022.” The new bill, includes most of the content of the earlier bill with only issues of particular interest to bio/pharma left on the cutting room floor.Continue Reading Proposed PTAB Reforms Adjusted for Bio/Pharma

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

CLE This Month

For those seeking some quality CLE this month, consider the second annual Patent Litigation Masters™ 2022 program, presented by IPWatchdog® this coming May 23rd-24th. The program is offered live at the Hyatt Regency (Dulles Airport). The two-day agenda offers a number of compelling topics, and as usual with the Watchdog Masters Programs…

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

Next Week’s CLE Agenda

For those seeking CLE this month, a number of great programs to consider in the coming weeks.

First up, the freebie 🙂

Next Tuesday, March 15th @ 1pm(EST) Gardella Grace presents the free one-hour webinar entitled In Possession of an Invention? Litigation Insights for Life Sciences Patent Drafting.  Presenters include…

Dispute Over Reexamination Vacatur Sent Back to VA Court

The recent trend of denying PTAB trial petitions on discretionary grounds has been argued to frustrate the purpose of the America Invents Act (AIA).  Indeed, patent reexamination filings — the clunky mechanism the AIA was supposed to supplant — surged by 60+% last year.  With stakeholders unhappy with how the PTAB is operating, interesting questions are being raised on when/how a reexamination remains viable after a failed AIA trial petition.

Last year, the Federal Circuit considered the timing of a Patent Owner 325(d) challenge to a follow-on reexamination after a failed IPR petition. This week, the Federal Circuit considered whether a petitioner that has been denied a reexamination can seek further review via an APA action of the district court.
Continue Reading Reexamination Denial Subject to APA Judicial Review