Posts Tagged: "America Invents Act"

A light Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and busy district court week for patent filings marked the 10-year anniversary of the passage of the America Invents Act, with 18 petitions (two post grant reviews [PGRs] and 16 inter partes reviews [IPRs]) and 78 district court complaints filed. A handful of those IPRs are semiconductor cases carried over from previous fights already reported here;

Now that the 10th anniversary of the America Invents Act (AIA) has passed, we can look back not only at the past decade, but also the reactions of various interested parties and how they responded to that anniversary. There were two revolutionary amendments to U.S. patent laws enacted on September 16, 2011; one relating to the U.S. changing from first-to-invent to first-to-file, the other relating to the creation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and three new procedural mechanisms to invalidate issued patents. While from a philosophical and practical point of view, the change from first-to-invent to first-to-file had the largest impact on patent practice, it has essentially become a footnote in patent history. Yes, the United States had a bizarre system that allowed the second filer in some instances (i.e., the first to invent) to obtain a patent over the first-to-file, but that almost never happened. And now, the United States has a strange, hybrid first-to-file system that still theoretically allows the first-to-invent to prevail in even rarer circumstances, but that change became easily baked into the system, because overwhelmingly, the first-to-invent did file first. The real story of the change to first-to-file is that much more is now prior art, including foreign filed applications as of their foreign filing date, typically, which continues the theme of the last 15+ years of making it harder to obtain and keep patent rights in the United States.

During IPWatchdog LIVE 2021 in Dallas, Texas, I asked a handful of willing attendees for their thoughts on the impact of the America Invents Act (AIA) in anticipation of today, the ten-year anniversary of the day President Barack Obama signed the AIA into law. I began writing for Managing IP magazine in 2007 and remember well the lead-up to the law. The discussion centered mostly on the change from a first-inventor-to-invent to a first-inventor-to-file system, which was seen as a way to harmonize the United States with the rest of the world, but which many feared would be detrimental to U.S. innovation. Some of the most controversial provisions were ultimately dropped in order to get the law through Congress, and overall, the IP world was celebrating on September 16, 2011, that at least some action had been taken on reforming, and ostensibly strengthening, the U.S. patent laws.

When the America Invents Act (AIA) was before Congress a decade ago, it was heralded as the first comprehensive patent law since the 1952 Act. Ten years’ perspective on the new law, however, shows that its changes to patent policy have been more evolution rather than revolution. The AIA is simply the latest step in the long arc of moving U.S. law toward a more objective and logical patent system—and one that produces more accurate results.

On day three of IPWatchdog LIVE in Dallas, Texas, former Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Makan Delrahim, who is now a Member of the Board of the Directors at Osiris Acquisition Corporation and a Lecturer in Law at the University of Pennsylvania, told attendees of the event that it’s unfortunate that antitrust [and its interaction with intellectual property rights] has become a partisan issue when “it doesn’t need to be.” Delrahim recalled during a Luncheon Fireside Chat with IPWatchdog Founder and CEO Gene Quinn that, 20 years ago, when he was detailed to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), “the approach to strong IP was a unifying issue, and something that was not questioned, nor its value.” He added that he has become a bit discouraged by the “echo chamber” that has been created about IP to “devalue its actual impact on economics and on society”—particularly when our trading partners, like China, have realigned to recognize the value.

On September 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a pair of decisions in Nomadix, Inc. v. Guest-Tek Interactive Entertainment Ltd. on appeal from a grant of permanent injunction entered by the Central District of California. In one decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed injunctive relief preventing Guest-Tek from filing petitions for patent validity trials at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in violation of a forum selection clause in Guest-Tek’s licensing agreement with Nomadix. In the other decision, the Ninth Circuit vacated portions of an attorneys’ fees award to Nomadix that covered the legal costs incurred by Nomadix during Guest-Tek’s PTAB petitions.

March 16, 2013 marked a watershed date in the practice of patent law as the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). Per Section 3 of the AIA, patent applications having an effective filing date prior to the effective date of the AIA are subject to first-to-invent/ pre-AIA law, whereas applications claiming an effective filing date after the effective date of the AIA are subject to the first inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA, including post grant administrative challenges introduced as part of the AIA. Not surprisingly, there were a number of patent applications filed that bridged the March 16, 2013 AIA effective date. These so-called “transition applications” were filed after March 16, 2013 but claimed priority to an application filed before March 16, 2013. These applications would not be subject to the provisions of the AIA unless the application contained a claim that did not properly find support in the pre-AIA priority document(s). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is taking aim at these transitional applications, and patents issuing therefrom, by casting a wide net with respect to eligibility under the AIA and closing apparent loopholes such that patent owners cannot reverse a finding that a patent is subject to AIA law, even if all of the claims of said patent are entitled to a pre-March 16, 2013 priority date.

During the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) quarterly meeting held today, participants provided an update on the Director Review process under the Supreme Court’s Arthrex v. Smith and Nephew ruling, among other announcements. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Senior Advisor and Judge Linda Horner noted that, since the ruling, 14 timely requests for Director Review have been received; 11 of those were for a batch of related inter partes reviews (IPRs). Hirshfeld this week issued two decisions on the first two requests, denying both; the rest remain pending.

The Patent Infringer Lobby has ramped up banging the drum about “patent quality.” They dedicated a week-long campaign to questioning “patent quality,” which its constituents regard as a huge problem. Advocates have taken advantage of the vacuum left after U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Andrei Iancu left the building. Anti-patent advocates are exploiting the new dynamic of Senator Patrick Leahy, coauthor of the America Invents Act (AIA), who now chairs the Senate Intellectual Property Subcommittee. Leahy recently did the Infringer Lobby the favor of holding a hearing on this subject.

In Part I, we looked at two of the legal principles that govern Arthrex Director review: Director review must be implemented by notice-and-comment “regulation,” not website, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires that the Director’s decision demonstrate “reasoned decisionmaking.” Today, we’ll look at a few more legal obligations that confine the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) discretion as the USPTO seeks a lawful implementation of Director review. This Part II concludes with a plea that the USPTO take the public interest seriously, as the public interest is reflected in various statutes outside the Patent Act.

In United States v. Arthrex, No. 19-1434, 141 S.Ct. 1970 (Jun. 21, 2021), Chief Justice Roberts cured an Appointments Clause defect in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) organic statute by holding that 35 U.S.C. § 6(c) “cannot constitutionally be enforced to the extent that it[] prevent[s] the Director from reviewing final decisions rendered by APJs.” Arthrex, slip op. at 21. Henceforth, rehearings are no longer the exclusive domain of PTAB panels, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) must provide at least one path of review that flows through the agency head…. This article discusses a number of issues of administrative law that must be addressed before the USPTO can proceed. The PTAB now resembles a poorly-maintained building—after decades of benign neglect, and more than a little old-fashioned cheating to evade work that’s required by the statute, a stress has induced a collapse.

The Supreme Court has issued its ruling in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, taking a different approach to curing the statute than did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in 2019, and ultimately vacating and remanding the case back to the Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). While the CAFC held that the statute could be severed and rendered constitutional by making Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) removeable at will, the Supreme Court said that remedy was not sufficient. The Court said: “[R]egardless whether the Government is correct that at-will removal by the Secretary would cure the constitutional problem, review by the Director better reflects the structure of supervision within the PTO and the nature of APJs’ duties.”

In celebration of last month’s World IP Day, Senate Judiciary Committee Intellectual Property Subcommittee Chairman Patrick Leahy expressed his support for a determined effort to encourage more individuals and small companies across this country to invent new technologies and products. He also noted the need for the U.S. patent system to incentivize this effort. The Alliance of U.S. Startups and Inventors for Jobs (USIJ) strongly supports Chairman Leahy’s important objective of empowering startups and inventors, and we frankly think it has been underappreciated for many years…. However, we are concerned with one point raised by Senator Leahy without providing much detail – that the prior Administration took “steps to undermine the Leahy-Smith Act.”

In his keynote video address to PTAB Masters participants today, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) championed the record of former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Andrei Iancu, and said that Iancu’s successful attempts to address many of the complaints with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) during his tenure should be codified into U.S. law. Changes such as harmonizing the PTAB claim construction standard with that of the district courts and making significant changes to the PTAB’s Standard Operating Procedures that have helped to create uniformity and instill transparency, all helped to provide more certainty for inventors, Tillis said.

The second day of IPWatchdog’s PTAB Masters™ 2021: “Winning at the PTAB” featured a keynote interview with former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director David Kappos, who was at the helm of the agency when the America Invents Act (AIA) was passed. As part of the AIA, Kappos was tasked with developing rules to implement the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and related post grant proceedings, and was chiefly focused on adhering to the unprecedented timelines set for those proceedings in the AIA. “The PTO had never been given strict timelines before,” explained Kappos. “I felt the gravity; I thought, ‘if the public is going to respect the PTO and patents, we have to get on top of the timeframes.’ [I told my team] the goal is going to be to implement within the timeframes 100% of the time.”