Posts Tagged: "patent office"

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), by and through his designees, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), has the unchallengeable authority to institute inter partes review (IPR) proceedings even when they are brought outside the statute of limitations. Thus, the PTAB is now the most important patent court in the United States. This begs an important question that Congress must soon wrestle with regarding access to the PTAB. We have been told over and over again just how essential the PTAB is to the patent system. How necessary the PTAB is with respect to rooting out bad patents that never should have issued. And, honestly, the PTAB has been very, very good at killing patent claims and patents. But there is a fundamental unfairness at the PTAB. If the PTAB is so important, why are the fees so high? If the PTAB plays such a vital role in correcting the egregious mistakes of patent examiners (of which there are apparently many given the number of valuable patents that die upon review), why should only those patents that are owned by independent inventors, universities, start-ups and research and development companies be the targets? What about the truly ridiculous, idiotic patents that are issued to large entities?

In an opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court ruled today that Section 314 (d) of the U.S. Patent Act, which bars judicial review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions to institute inter partes review (IPR), should preclude appeals of PTAB institution decisions, even where the appeal is based on Section 315(b)’s one-year time-bar for institution. “Congress designed inter partes review to weed out bad patent claims efficiently,” wrote the Court in today’s decision. “Allowing §315(b) appeals, however, would unwind agency proceedings determining patentability and leave bad patents enforceable.” Despite Click-to-Call’s argument that the bar on appeals under Section 314(d) is limited to the agency’s threshold determination under §314(a) of the question whether the petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, the Court explained that Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee “is fatal to that interpretation.”

The Study of Underrepresented Classes Chasing Engineering and Science Success (SUCCESS) Act of 2018 directs the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to study and report to Congress on the number of patents applied for and obtained: (1) by women, minorities, and veterans; and (2) by small businesses owned by women, minorities, and veterans. In partial fulfilment of that directive, the USPTO Office of the Chief Economist, in February of 2019, published “Progress and Potential – A profile of women inventors on U.S. Patents”. The stated purpose of the report is “to learn more about the progress and potential of women in patenting,” as a means to “harness underexploited talent.”… We believed that it may be instructive to attempt to pair women-inventor-representation data and women-workforce-representation data across multiple technological fields. Our data indicates that, across industries, employed female engineers are half as likely to be listed as inventors on patent applications as compared to their male counterparts. Why might females be underrepresented as inventors, even within industries where many females are employed? The authors submit that it is essential to investigate these root causes.

The year 2019 was supposed to be when subject matter eligibility examination at the USPTO got better. First, the USPTO published Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance in January 2019 meant to address “how to apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s [Alice] framework for evaluating eligibility [under Section 101].” 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“PEG”). Then, the USPTO doubled down with the October 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility update (“October Update”). In contemporary parlance, you might say that 2019 was supposed to be the year that the USPTO flattened the Section 101 rejection curve. There is promising evidence that the 2019 Guidance has reduced Section 101 rejections during prosecution before USPTO examiners. See Update on 101 Rejections at the USPTO: Prospects for Computer-Related Applications Continue to Improve Post-Guidance. Unfortunately, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) does not seem to have received the memo. While the PTAB routinely refers to the 2019 Guidance in decisions on Section 101 rejections, there is at least one critical requirement of the 2019 Guidance that the PTAB appears to ignore—the requirement that an examiner must show every claim, individually, is ineligible.

Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) often occur in parallel to district court cases. Patent owners whose patent rights survive IPR may return to district court at a distinct advantage, not only by emerging with their patent rights intact, but also by capitalizing on events during the IPR and using them to their advantage in district court litigation. Real-party-in-interest disputes can be hotly contested before the Board. An order from the Northern District of Illinois shows that these disputes can have larger significance and impact petitioners in litigation. In that order, the Illinois federal court relied on the Board’s fact-finding from an IPR dispute over the petitioner’s identification of real-parties-in-interest to find that petitioner had waived the attorney-client privilege in the litigation. RTC Indus., Inc. v. Fasteners for Retail, Inc., No. 17-cv-03595, 2019 WL 5003681 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 8, 2019).

Last week, as a part of the Virtual Patent Masters™ Program hosted by IPWatchdog, I had the opportunity to interview Makan Delrahim, who is Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). During his tenure at the Antitrust Division, AAG Delrahim has moved the policy of the federal government in a direction that is viewed as being more friendly to patent owners and innovators. For example, in December 2018, Delrahim indicated that the Antitrust Division was withdrawing its assent to the to the 2013 joint DOJ-U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments (the 2013 Joint Policy Statement) during remarks delivered at the 19th Annual Berkeley-Stanford Advanced Patent Law Institute. It was the Delrahim’s view that patent remedies shouldn’t be unilaterally unavailable for one category of patent simply because the patent owner may be subject to an obligation to engage in fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory negotiations with implementers.

Yesterday, the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board designated two opinions as precedential. In one case, Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, the Board exercised its discretion to deny institution of inter partes review (IPR)under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). In the other, Oticon Medical AB v. Cochlear Limited, the Board concluded that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that the claims in question were unpatentable and, thus, instituted IPR.

In the age of electronic filing, working from home and sheltering in place appears to have accelerated—or at least not slowed down significantly—district court and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) filings. This week saw a return to form, with 31 new PTAB petitions and 72 new district court complaints. Large district court assertions nearing the one-year bar drove up the PTAB filings; on the district court side, existing non-practicing entities (NPE) campaigns added a fair number of defendants, and a dispute between WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development and Huawei resulted in a half-dozen complaints.

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied rehearing en banc in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew. Five of the 12 Federal Circuit judges wrote separately to explain their reasons for denying, or dissenting from denial on, rehearing. IPWatchdog Founder and CEO Gene Quinn said the order reveals a chaotic and disorganized court. “This court has horribly failed the industry by refusing to agree on anything,” Quinn said. “For a court that claims to be so overworked that it must dispose of literally half of its docket with one-sentence Rule 36 summary affirmances, spending so much time and energy across 58 pages of completely meaningless analysis and disagreement goes beyond unconscionable.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has denied rehearing en banc in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, a decision that made the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) administrative patent judges (APJs) “inferior officers” under the U.S. Appointments Clause, in order to skirt the problem that they had been unconstitutionally appointed under the America Invents Act. Five of the 12 Federal Circuit judges wrote separately to explain their reasons for denying, or dissenting from denial on, rehearing. Judge Moore wrote to concur with the denial, and Judges O’Malley, Reyna and Chen joined, saying that granting rehearing “would only create unnecessary uncertainty and disruption.” Moore added that the Arthrex panel followed Supreme Court precedent in concluding that APJs were improperly appointed principal officers, and also followed precedent in its solution which severed a portion of the statute “to solve that constitutional problem while preserving the remainder of the statute and minimizing disruption to the inter partes review system Congress created.”

In the past week, the COVID-19 pandemic has led courts across the country to close buildings, postpone hearings, adjust filing rules, and revamp their typical approach to pending cases. These changes have created new uncertainties for litigants and their counsel in cases requiring emergency relief, but our initial survey of public statements and emerging practices from leading courts around the country provide some reassurance that courts are mostly continuing to function normally, with changes to filing procedures and arguments being heard by phone.

We live in interesting times. No corner of professional or personal life seems untouched in at least some way by the latest coronavirus (named SARS-CoV-2) and the disease it causes (named “coronavirus disease 2019” abbreviated COVID-19). Governments all around the world are either demanding or suggesting that people quarantine themselves or engage in social distancing. The intellectual property world is no different. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the European Patent Office (EPO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), IP Australia, the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA), and the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) are just some of the Offices that have in recent days issued COVID-19 guidance to inform stakeholders of how the Offices will handle workflow and meetings during this global health emergency.

In Facebook v. Windy City Innovations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit earlier today ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) erred both in allowing Facebook to join itself to a proceeding in which it was already a party, and in allowing Facebook to add new claims to the inter partes reviews (IPRs) at issue through that joinder…. On the topic of whether the language of § 315(c) authorizes the joinder of a person as a party to a proceeding in which it is already a party, the Court was again clear on what the plain language of § 315(c) allows. The Director is permitted  “to join as a party [to an already instituted IPR] any person’ who meets certain requirements. 35 U.S.C. § 315 (emphases added).”

With Coronavirus delaying prosecution, preventing courts from empaneling juries, and keeping attorneys home with the kids, you would think filings would have dropped; instead, we saw a slight uptick this week. We saw Elizabeth Holmes’ Theranos patents reemerge, witnessed the start of a battle between in-flight WiFi companies, and even watched sheets of sapphire sold to the government stay hot.

Experts speaking during IPWatchdog’s Virtual Patent Masters Symposium yesterday expressed concern over the state of the U.S. patent system, but also offered a number of solutions, and many took a cautiously optimistic outlook for the future. In one session, Patent Masters Q. Todd Dickinson of Polsinelli, Judge Theodore Essex of Hogan Lovells, Retired Chief Judge Paul Michel, and Robert Stoll of Drinker Biddle discussed the Supreme Court case eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, wherein the former bright line rule of issuing permanent injunctions was replaced by a four-factor test according to familiar rules of equity that apply to all areas of law. While the consensus among the Masters was that eBay has created a multitude of problems, Judge Michel pointed out that eBay has been misinterpreted by the district courts.