Iancu: More 101 Guidance and PTAB Reforms Coming Soon

By Gene Quinn
August 2, 2018

“I certainly agree it is important to have certainty of patent rights,” Iancu explained. “The boundaries of a patent cannot possibly depend on the happenstance of which tribunal will review that patent years down the line…”

Andrei Iancu, Director of the USPTO at PPAC, Aug. 2, 2018.

Andrei Iancu, Director of the USPTO at PPAC, Aug. 2, 2018.

Earlier this morning Andrei Iancu, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, gave opening remarks at the Quarterly meeting of the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC), which was followed by a question and answer period. Repeatedly during his remarks and the question and answer period, Director Iancu explained that there will be more to come from the USPTO on patent eligibility and PTAB reforms “hopefully in the next several weeks or so.”

Of particular interest, in an exchange with Bernie Knight, former General Counsel at the USPTO, Director Iancu sun sponte raised the issue of panel stacking, explaining that he has heard the criticisms, but does not share the concerns. At first that would seem rather dismissive. Iancu would go on to say, however, that in the coming weeks the Office will have more to say on this issue, and that there will be greater transparency for the parties and the public on the issue of expanded panels.

Thus, while Director Iancu may publicly say he does not share the views of the critics, if the Office does make changes to enact real transparency that would address one of the serious criticisms of expanded panels, which we have here on IPWatchdog referred to as phantom expanded panels because of the complete and total lack of transparency. Left open, however, would be the use of panel stacking to achieve the desired outcome preferred by the Director or Chief Judge, which in an inter partes process is tantamount to picking winners and losers and is entirely different than the panel stacking tolerated by the Federal Circuit’s In re Alappat decision. See Alappat 101: Why the Federal Circuit has not authorized the PTAB practice of panel stacking.

[[Advertisement]]

Director Iancu’s Remarks

Director Iancu began his remarks by speaking of the issuance of Patent No. 10,000,000 since the last PPAC meeting, explaining that he signed the patent, as per usual, but that the patent was also signed by President Trump and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, with the signing ceremony taking place in the Oval Office. Starting with President George Washington and running through President John Quincy Adams all patents were signed by Presidents, but since John Quincy Adams only two Presidents have signed patents — President Gerald Ford signed a patent in 1976 in a ceremony relating to the bicentennial celebration, and now President Trump has signed a patent.

On to substantive issues, Director Iancu spoke of the so-called Berkheimer memo, which deals with Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, and have also issued the Vanda memo, relating to claims relating to methods of treatment. Director Iancu explained the Office continues to work on additional 101 guidance and “hopefully in the coming months we will have more to say on that issue.”

“We are working on various issues coming out of the PTAB,” Iancu said pointing to the proposed rules relating to the switch from the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim in post grant proceedings to what is known as the Phillips standard, the claim construction standard used in federal district court, and which the Federal Circuit has referred to as the true construction of the claim. Iancu said the Office received more than 350 comments relating to the proposed rules, and work is ongoing as the Office reviews those comments. Although Director Iancu did not characterize the substance of the comments, it is understood that the bulk of the comments received were either supportive or neutral.

“We are working on the amendment process for post grant proceedings,” Iancu said. “We are looking towards issuing guidance on amendments and the process for amendments within the next few weeks or months.” Iancu would go on to say that the Office believes the amendments should be done within the proceedings themselves. “We think [amendments] should be completed under normal circumstances within the 12 months proscribed by the statute,” Iancu explained. “We think they should be fully participatory…”

“We are looking at a variety of other issues with respect to the PTAB, such as the Trial Practice Guide, and the like,” Iancu said.

Q&A with Director Iancu and PPAC

Responding to an inquiry about the business community losing faith in the patent system and the importance of his leadership in the public eye, Iancu explained:

We do have a fairly big hill to climb. There is absolutely zero doubt in my mind that the patent system is critically important; that having a robust patent system is critically important. All we have to do is look at our history, from the founding of the Republic until today, and all the amazing technology and science and growth that we have experienced in this country… and throughout all that time, and all that work, it was backed by the patent system… We really must have faith in the system; the business community must have faith in the system… We need to have a very careful balance and understand the pressure points. The last thing we need to do is to ignore or downgrade the patent system. That will have a detrimental affect across the board. Instead we need to have a robust system in a balanced fashion.

PPAC Member and former USPTO General Counsel, Bernie Knight, raised the question about the difference between what happens in examination and what happens before the PTAB. The user community is very concerned that examiners are issuing claims and those same claims are being invalidated by the Board, Knight explained. “What are the initiatives that you have started that you have started to enhance the certainty of the patent right before the Board?”

Bernie Knight at PPAC, Aug. 2, 2018.

Bernie Knight at PPAC, Aug. 2, 2018.

“I certainly agree it is important to have certainty of patent rights,” Iancu explained. “The boundaries of a patent cannot possibly depend on the happenstance of which tribunal will review that patent years down the line, because you don’t know whether it might be the PTO that takes it up first, the district court or the ITC that will take it up first. The boundaries, at least from an objective point of view, should be the same no matter who reviews it. That is one of the main reasons we proposed the claim construction standards should be the same.”

Director Iancu went on to explain that he doesn’t believe that the result of post grant proceedings should be an all or nothing proposition. He explained the statute envisions an amendment process, which would allow claims that might be invalid as originally granted to be fixed, which is why he believes “a robust amendment process is critically important.”

“Let me mention one more thing that I did not mention in my opening comment, which is the question of the review panel itself,” Iancu said. “There has been some criticism out there about the way we sometimes enhance or expand the panel. I don’t particularly subscribe to those criticisms, but I hear them. So, we are working toward clarifying that process to provide more transparency, both to the parties to the process as well as to the public. And again, hopefully in the next several weeks or so we will have more to say about that as well.”

Knight followed up with a suggestion based on his experience having been General Counsel of the USPTO during the Kappos years. Knight explained that one way to enhance the certainty of the patent grant would be to establish that when the Office issue guidance to examiners that guidance is actually binding on the PTAB, because while he was General Counsel he said he would routinely hear from member of the Board that they do not have to follow Office guidance.

“But they do report to you— you prepare their performance plans— I would think one great initiative would be to make certain the Board judges are following the same guidelines the examiners are following,” Knight said.

“Thanks for the suggestion. Let me just state the obvious: We are one agency,” Iancu said with a smile.

Knight is absolutely correct. Members of the PTAB do not follow agency guidance, and if Director Iancu can truly get the USPTO to operate as one agency on the same page that would be a tremendous legacy. Given the latitude Director Iancu is being given from the Department of Commerce and the White House, as well as his accomplished track record in the private sector, I don’t doubt that he has as good a chance as anyone to accomplish that goal, but it is not going to be an easy challenge I’m afraid despite the fact that it should be obvious that the USPTO is one agency.

UPDATED: August 2, 2018 @ 11:23am to mention Alappat in the third paragraph. 

The Author

Gene Quinn

Gene Quinn is a Patent Attorney and Editor and founder of IPWatchdog.com. Gene is also a principal lecturer in the PLI Patent Bar Review Course and an attorney with Widerman Malek. Gene’s specialty is in the area of strategic patent consulting, patent application drafting and patent prosecution. He consults with attorneys facing peculiar procedural issues at the Patent Office, advises investors and executives on patent law changes and pending litigation matters, and works with start-up businesses throughout the United States and around the world, primarily dealing with software and computer related innovations. is admitted to practice law in New Hampshire, is a Registered Patent Attorney and is also admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CLICK HERE to send Gene a message.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 10 Comments comments. Join the discussion.

  1. Anon August 2, 2018 11:53 am

    The elephant in the room is that the law – as rewritten by the Supreme Court (no matter how applied in the lower courts) – is Void for Vagueness.

    Nothing that Iancu does or attempts to do from the different branch of the executive branch can change what the judicial branch has wrought.

    No one does anyone any favors by pretending that the elephant is not there.

  2. Jianqing Wu August 2, 2018 4:37 pm

    The Director Icancu should fix an overwhelming number of problems in the PTO.

    He might have received my letter revealing a biggest problem in the PTO: Supervisory examiners in software units reject claims by predetermined mind. In certain art units, an irrelevant reference is arbitrarily copied in multiple actions, and in each action, it is used as a versatile magic element for many different claimed features. Naturally, the examiner could NOT particularly identify any equivalent thing for any claimed element. The quality of work is no better than what any high-school student could achieve. It only requires to know one to two words.

    I understand the massive number of problems were created in Michelle Lee’s time. Examiners do not need to read and analyze papers they sign. They only need to know who are applicants, subjects of inventions, and the type of action as being of “rejection”. Examiners are promoted for rejecting claims and killing applications. An examiner for doing this kind of robot-like task was promoted from GS-7 to GS 15 in just ten years. In a private setting, the examiner should be demoted.

    What can Director Iancu do to fix those problems? After a bad culture has been formed, it will be a pain to change. An office action on software would require at least ten additional hours to work, yet might have to change from rejection to allowance. If more applications are allowed in one round of prosecution, how can the Office pay for examiner salaries? Now they have an inventive to sign the same frivolous actions by 2X to X3 without doing anything. If this practice is changed back to the old practice, they can enter a bad office action only once. That means that the examiner must spend 2X to 3X time on each application. It will have a huge economic problem: how to get money for the examiners who actually do serious work.

    If Director Icancu notices this economy issue, he would have to dismantle the PTO as a welfare house for examiners who do not do jobs. Most readers might recall many scandals that examiners stole time. That culture was Michelle’s distinctive product. It is easy to create it, but it would be a real pain to get rid of it.

  3. Tiburon August 2, 2018 6:38 pm

    “the business community losing faith in the patent system”

    This is all coming down due to scoundrels like IBM winning $82million from true innovator Groupon. The first contributes nothing but pieces of paper while the latter innovates and brings useful products to market yet money is transferred from the scientists and engineers to the parasitic IBM with their stronger lawyers.

  4. Curious August 2, 2018 6:57 pm

    This is all coming down due to scoundrels like IBM winning $82million from true innovator Groupon. The first contributes nothing but pieces of paper while the latter innovates and brings useful products to market yet money is transferred from the scientists and engineers to the parasitic IBM with their stronger lawyers.
    Groupon a true innovator? LOL … Groupon has 93 issued patents to their name. I’m guessing that IBM does that every Tuesday (two or three times over).

    Groupon did what most of the so-called “innovators” in the internet space have done. They used technology (lots and lots and lots of it) not of their own creation without paying for it. They then became indignant when the owner of that technology came calling for a licensing agreement.

    I shed no tears for Groupon.

  5. IPdude August 2, 2018 6:59 pm

    Tiburon @3. Truly hypocritical. I don’t see you bringing up Google, Facebook, Amazon or Apple as examples of willful infringers who outgun startups and steal at will only to slap independent inventors/startups (through third parties) with an IPR to get them out of the market. Do your homework before you try to call BS. Let me guess, you probably think Facebook is innovating by ripping off Snap? The pendulum is swinging, enjoy the ride.

  6. Jianqing Wu August 2, 2018 8:10 pm

    Some operating companies start up by using their technologies while others start up by stealing technologies. After an inventor’s patent application is published, claimed invention will appear in products or services of a company within one to two years. The PTO will keep rejecting the application. With time passing, it would become more difficult to convince the examiner to grant a patent on the application. If the PTO delays in issuing the patent for ten years, the infringing company will create an impression that it “invented” its own technology long ago. Due to such a long delay, the inventor will have a difficult time to prove that the company actually copied his invention. So, the infringing company will use “providing products and services” as an excuse for stealing inventions, calls the inventor’s invention as a piece of paper, and tries anything to avoid liabilities.

  7. Invention Rights August 2, 2018 10:14 pm

    Tiburon is being sarcastic. Great perspective.

  8. Benny August 3, 2018 9:21 am

    J Wu @2,
    Give the examiner a few more hours to search prior art, and you are going to see more 102 rejections instead of 103, not more allowances.

  9. Anon August 3, 2018 9:57 am

    Mr. Wu @ 2,

    You give Miss Lee TOO much credit, as the “beast within” was there prior to Miss Lee’s arrival and lurks in many of the “lifer” staff that are embedded below the changing level of the director.

    What is truly needed here (especially in light of the appeal panel manipulations) is that the Office actually abide by 37 CFR 1.2 and that ALL actions affecting prosecution be in writing and on the (open) record. This is a rule of law already on the books and one that simply must be applied in order to achieve what is now being touted as desired.

    There is absolutely ZERO reason why ANY shadow work should be tolerated, let alone actively pursued with the likes of shadow programs such as SAWS (and yes, I do realize that the individual program named SAWS was shuttered, but I will remind all that the Office committed a telling gaffe when it shuttered SAWS with a public admission that SAWS was but one of MANY such shadow programs).

  10. Night Writer August 3, 2018 10:30 am

    @2Jianqing Wu

    I generally agree with you and have faced SPEs with sets of references they use over and over and they generalize the claims to somehow being rendered obvious by their set of references. I had one SPE tell me that he had six references that he used.

    The solution is to go back to TSM.

Post a Comment

Respectfully add to the discussion.

Name *
Email *
Website

Our website uses cookies to provide you with a better experience. Read our privacy policy for more information.Accept and Close