Posts Tagged: "inventor"

Despite rumors that changes have been made at the USPTO to bring balance to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a hard look at the data shows that it is business as usual. Astounding numbers of patents continue to be invalidated, despite many superficial changes over the past few years. Several hundred institution decisions have been issued under these changes, establishing a statistically significant sample size for evaluation. Detailed analysis of the data proves that nothing has changed at the PTAB which continues to permit abuse and invalidate an astoundingly high percentage of patents. The “death squad for patents” is as lethal as ever.

Last week, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a decision refusing to vacate a Notice of Missing Parts in U.S. Patent Application No.: 16/524,350 (the ‘350 Application), titled “Devices and Methods for Attracting Enhanced Attention”, for failure to “identify each inventor by his or her legal name” on the Application Data Sheet (ADS). The ADS listed a single inventor with the given name DABUS and the family name as “Invention generated by artificial intelligence.” DABUS stands for “Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience”. The Application listed Stephen L. Thaler as the Assignee, Applicant and the Legal Representative. The USPTO denied the petition to vacate the Notice of Missing Parts.

If a recent decision denying institution of an inter partes review (IPR) is any indicator, the answer to the titular question seems to be no, the Board does not routinely review a challenged patent’s prosecution history—even when the history includes a prior Board decision construing claim terms at issue in the IPR. In Apple Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-00753, Paper 7 (PTAB. Sep. 16, 2019), the Board majority denied institution, finding certain claimed subject matter missing from Apple’s prior art—despite the Board’s earlier finding in a prosecution appeal that the very same subject matter was disclosed and obvious based on different prior art. Making the apparent oversight even more remarkable, one member of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) majority had actually authored the earlier prosecution appeal decision.

On January 23, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision holding all claims (1-20) of U.S. Patent No. 9,160,713 B2 (the ‘713 patent) unpatentable. The ‘713 patent, owned by Centripetal Networks, Inc. (CN), was challenged in an inter partes review (IPR) by Cisco System, Inc. (Cisco). Of the latest eight final written decisions from the PTAB, all challenged claims were found unpatentable in seven:

If you are an inventor new to inventing, you undoubtedly believe you’ve come up with an idea, or two or three, that could really be successful. That eternal optimism and belief in one’s self is precisely what every inventor needs to succeed. Now, if you are like the so many others who have walked in your footsteps before you, you’ve probably started researching how to patent an idea but have quickly become bombarded with information from a variety of sources.  “I have no clue where to start, and I have only a limited budget,” is a typical new inventor question. “What should be my first step?” The patent process can be complex and knowing where to begin and how to approach the process in a cost-responsible manner is not always easy, particularly for first time inventors. Of course, before proceeding it is worth first asking why it is you want a patent? The road to invention riches may, or may not, include obtaining a patent, although at least filing a provisional patent application can be and usually is a wise first step for a variety of reasons.

Ask ten professionals for their attitude on the current state of patents in 2019, and you’ll receive ten distinctly different opinions ranging anywhere from the incredibly negative patents-are-dying attitude to the overly optimistic everything-is-fine-here outlook. The consternation of it all is that each of those ten professionals would be absolutely right in their estimations, and entirely wrong as well. And that’s the patent world in which we’ve found ourselves during the entirety of 2019—everyone is wrong, and everyone is right, because no one actually knows which way is up anymore. We have officially entered the upside down.

The United States Office of the Solicitor General has filed its brief in response to the Supreme Court’s March request for views in Hikma Pharmaceuticals v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals. The December 6 brief says that the Federal Circuit correctly held the relevant claims of Vanda’s patent-in-suit eligible, and that the case “is not an optimal vehicle for bringing greater clarity” on the topic of Section 101 law since the CAFC arrived at the correct result. Instead, the High Court should grant certiorari in a case like Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative Services, in which the order denying en banc rehearing “was accompanied by multiple separate opinions articulating different understandings of Mayo and seeking clarification from this Court.”

On Monday, December 9, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP. The case, which has gone through multiple name changes since its original appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), will ask the nation’s highest court whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), which states that decisions to institute inter partes review (IPR) proceedings shall not be appealable, permits appeals of PTAB institution decisions based upon 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Section 315(b) states that IPRs won’t be instituted if the patent owner served the petitioner with a complaint for patent infringement more than one year prior to the petition. To summarize the lower court proceedings in this case, the patent-at-issue was first asserted against Keen Inc. by Inforocket.com in 2001 in a case that was voluntarily dismissed. Click-to-Call acquired the patent and asserted it in 2012 against Ingenio, a company formed through a merger of Keen and Inforocket.com. Ingenio filed for an IPR petition and Click-to-Call challenged it based on the Section 315(b) time-bar and the former suit against Ingenio’s predecessor. The appeal reached the Supreme Court, where it was remanded in June 2016 in light of Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rendered a decision last August where all 12 Federal Circuit judges joined a footnote finding that the Section 315(b) time bar applies even when the earlier infringement action had been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

Earlier this month, Mallinckrodt succeeded in its inter partes review (IPR) challenge against patent owner Biovie, Inc. (Biovie). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) final determination held that all claims of Biovie’s U.S. Patent No. 9,655,945 (the ‘945 patent) were unpatentable. The claims of Biovie’s ‘945 patent, directed to administering terlipressin to ascites (abnormal buildup of fluid in the abdomen) patients, were deemed anticipated and/or obvious over the prior art. During the IPR, Biovie attempted to use the recent Federal Circuit decision from OSI Pharmaceuticals v. Apotex (OSI) as a shield to patentability, but the shield was unsuccessful. As such, OSI is unlikely to be a cure-all for pharmaceutical method of treatment claims, in IPR proceedings or otherwise.

During this turbulent era in the history of the U.S. patent system, many enterprises have pursued new models for IP strategy and execution. Others have taken a wait-and-see, business-as-usual tack. Change certainly is no stranger to patent systems around the world. Yet, some principles remain timeless and unassailable no matter how winds may shift. For example, we all can agree that patent filing and maintenance decisions should be sound, protecting the right technologies in the right places for the right reasons. Technology companies face patent-related decision points around seemingly every corner. The consequences of suboptimal decision-making are troubling, including wasteful expenditures, missed strategic opportunities, and diminished shareholder value. Therefore, enterprises should not hesitate to continually reflect on the quality of their patent filing and maintenance decisions, and on the framework that supports them. Cognitive bias—defined as “the collection of faulty ways of thinking … hardwired into the human brain”—can hijack patent decision processes just as it does every other area of human endeavor. As such, it can lead to suboptimal outcomes despite IP stakeholders’ sincere, dedicated participation.

On November 13, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) requested the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit suspend all consideration of an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that would raise the same issues addressed in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith and Nephew, Inc., because the Office will seek rehearing en banc in Arthrex. See Stuben Foods, Inc. v. Nestle USA, Inc., No. 20-1082, -1083. As a reminder, on October 31, the Federal Circuit issued an important constitutional decision in Arthrex, which found that the hiring of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Federal Circuit did, however, attempt to provide a gift to the Office by rewriting the section of the statute they found to create the problem, which created the PTAB and the appointment of APJs, and by so doing turned APJs into inferior officers. The solution: APJs were judicially decreed to be employees-at-will in order to save the statute. So, why hasn’t Director Iancu cleaned house at the PTAB? It would seem to be because the USPTO believes Arthrex was wrongly decided.  

My company, Chestnut Hill Sound Inc. (ChillSound), has been victimized by a U.S. patent system that for nearly a decade has been in a sorry state. Changes wrought by the America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011 and other recent developments cost my company, its investors and inventors millions of dollars. These changes have allowed a large company to reap great profits at our expense. Even more unfortunately, our story is too typical of many other inventors and small companies. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and need to be cultivated, as they are the most dynamic source of new jobs and competitive products and technologies. There have always been reports of large corporations stealing inventions from small businesses, but it used to be possible via the courts to vindicate the patent rights of owners and obtain ultimate redress.  The AIA—sold by the “efficient infringers” lobby as a measure to protect big business from the expense and nuisance of so-called “patent trolls”—has turned into a weapon of deep-pocketed big businesses that enables them to steal with impunity inventions from small businesses and independent inventors. The AIA brought with it the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and Inter Partes Review (IPRs), a post-grant adversarial proceeding at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). As has been amply discussed here on IPWatchdog, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) recently opined that the so-called Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) were unconstitutionally appointed from the beginning. Yet these unconstitutionally appointed APJs continue to kill patents, especially when the patent owner is a small company that has sued a large company for infringement, as was the case with ChillSound.

It is not unusual for there to be unintended consequences in the law or life. A loved one gives you something you don’t really like, but you do such a good job of feigning happiness that it becomes a regular gift. Who knew you could ever have too many “lovely” ties or too much single malt Scotch? Congress is in the process of giving the patent bar some welcome relief on some important issues, but may be throwing in that unwanted gift along with it. The STRONGER Patents Act intends to address the potential for inconsistent rulings between district court cases and inter partes reviews (IPRs). The Act achieves this by expressing a preference for district court rulings and by requiring IPRs to apply the same standards for validity determinations that are used in the district court. This is already the case by USPTO regulation with respect to claim construction, but the Act would make it statutory for both claim construction and validity, and thus not subject to change by the USPTO. While the use of the same standard for validity in both forums will make the rulings more consistent, the statutory preference for the district court over the IPR may have an unintended consequence.

Since inventors are rarely allowed to participate in patent discussions in Congress, I would like to submit my testimony here. In Arthrex, the Federal Circuit in effect decided that our rights are subordinate to the government, so the government has the authority to giveth them to us or taketh them away. I would like to remind the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court, and Congress that you are tasked with the honor, privilege and duty to defend our rights. That is the very basis on which you are employed, and you have no function other than that. Our rights preexist you, supersede you, and come from sources that are above your pay grade. They exist as a matter of our birth. You have no legitimate authority to take those rights just because it is inconvenient for the huge multinational corporations that have to now deal with the illegitimate position of owning our rights because so-called judges unconstitutionally took them from us and gave them to those huge corporations.   

Since the issuance by the United States Supreme Court of its opinion in Alice Corporation Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has increased its focus on patent eligibility. As a consequence, patent applicants now receive more claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, leading to protracted prosecution. While rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are likely unavoidable, patent attorneys and agents can take steps during application preparation and prosecution to minimize the likelihood of such rejections and to successfully rebut such rejections when they do arise.