Posts Tagged: "patent"

Section 311(b) of the America Invents Act (AIA) provides that a patent can be challenged in an inter partes review (IPR) “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” A published U.S. patent application that never issued as a patent can be used as the basis for an IPR challenge because it’s printed and it’s a publication, right? Not so fast.

Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE) have introduced a bill to study the inefficiencies in the reporting system required under the Bayh-Dole Act, with an eye toward streamlining processes. Titled the “Improving Efficiency to Increase Competition Act of 2023,” the bill would direct the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to Congress on the impact of the various reporting requirements implemented by different agencies under Bayh-Dole for intellectual property developed by federal grantees.

In the dynamic landscape of the legal industry, the winds of change are blowing stronger than ever, and the eye of the storm is centered on intellectual property (IP) practices. The catalyst for this transformation is the rapid diffusion of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) across industries. If we liken this to historical breakthroughs, the emergence of the internet 30 years ago pales in comparison, as GenAI’s impact is a staggering 100 times faster. The legal industry, once considered somewhat sheltered from disruptive forces, now finds itself at the epicenter of a tornado of change. This is particularly true for IP practices, where the intricacies of patent prosecution have long relied on intensive human involvement. As a partner entrusted with steering the strategy of your firm over the next decade, understanding the seismic shifts brought about by GenAI is paramount.

The first week of 2024 was a light one for patent filings. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) had a slightly below average 21 new petitions—all petitions for inter partes review (IPR), while there were only 34 new filings in district court. The PTAB saw new IPRs filed against Advanced Coding (filed by Samsung), XR Communications (filed by Ericsson) and Semiconductor Design (filed by Cadence Design Systems). Four new IPRs challenging three Senko Advanced Components Inc. [associated with Senko Group Holdings Co, Ltd.] patents were filed by US Conec Ltd. After low activity throughout 2023, Askeladden has filed three new IPRs challenging three Calabrese Stemer LLC patents and four new IPRs challenging three Intercurrency Software LLC patents.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC) sent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests on January 9 to the Department of Commerce and the National Institutes for Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding the Biden Administration’s recent Request for Information Regarding the Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights. The proposed framework was published in the Federal Register in December by NIST and the Department of Commerce and included suggestions on whether and when to exercise “march-in rights” under the Bayh-Dole Act that would arguably significantly broaden the criteria for compulsory licensing of patented technology developed with federal funding.

In the book / movie “The Shining”, the Overlook hotel is haunted by ghosts involved in past wrongs committed on the property, presumably to make the current inhabitants atone for such sins. Notwithstanding this transcendental precedent, Judge Rodney Gilstrap recently declined to extend such a notion to patents subject to Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing related obligations.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published guidelines for examiners today on the topic of enablement in light of the Supreme Court’s May 2023 decision in Amgen v. Sanofi. The Office’s view seems to largely mesh with what our guest authors concluded earlier today—Amgen isn’t getting rid of In re Wands and—at the USPTO at least—the decision has seemingly maintained the status quo.

Last term, the U.S. Supreme Court did something strange: the Court unanimously affirmed a circuit decision, which had unanimously affirmed a trial court decision. Little about the law seemed ripe for dispute or change, nevertheless, in Amgen v. Sanofi the Supreme Court spoke. Seven months later, innovators and patent practitioners are still scratching their heads. What impact, if any, does Amgen have? Is there a sign lower courts are interpreting Amgen as signaling a change in American patent law or did it merely ratify what already existed?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in a precedential decision today affirmed two decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that invalidated some claims and upheld others of a patent owned by Personal Genomics Taiwan, Inc. Based on the PTAB’s claim construction, which the CAFC agreed with, the decision held that Pacific Biosciences had failed to prove the prior art taught the limitation of the preamble phrase of claim 1 in one inter partes review, (IPR) but did prove a different prior art reference taught the limitation in the other proceeding.

As we enter 2024, major policy initiatives are pending at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and in Congress aimed at overhauling certain aspects of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practice. These initiatives—the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) and PREVAIL Act, respectively, are at a critical point, with elections less than a year away. This article discusses the current state of both.

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied a petition asking the High Court to clarify patent eligibility jurisprudence under Section 101 since its 2014 ruling in Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l. Realtime Data, LLC asked the Court specifically to address the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) August 2023 decision holding 211 of its patent claims ineligible as abstract.

On January 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit published an amended opinion and order denying rehearing and rehearing en banc, thus upholding its August reversal of the Northern District of California’s dismissal of a qui tam whistleblower action under the False Claims Act (FCA). The FCA claim was brought by patent attorney Zachary Silbersher against Valeant Pharmaceuticals, predecessor to Canadian drugmaker Bausch Health. The appellate court’s decision turned on the application of the FCA’s public disclosure bar, finding that inter partes review (IPR) proceedings did not trigger the statutory bar to qui tam actions based on evidence previously disclosed during adversarial agency proceedings “in which the Government or its agent is a party.”

Recently, amendments to the Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Patent Law were issued and will take effect from January 20, 2024. The Regulations align with the revisions made to the Patent Law in 2020 and provide further guidance. The main changes to the new Regulations, as compared with the 2010 version of the Regulations,  can be summarized as follows.

Looking back over the final few weeks of 2023, patent filings were typical at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and slightly above average in district courts, with the last weeks of the year seeing 68 district court complaints filed and 25 new PTAB petitions [December 11-17]; followed by 57 district court complaints filed and 29 new PTAB petitions [December 18-24]; and wrapped up with 24 district court complaints filed and 13 new PTAB petitions [December 25-31].

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential ruling that affirmed a district court’s denial of preliminary injunction to DexCom, Inc., holding that the language of the governing contract’s forum selection clause expressly allowed for the filing of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings in certain circumstances. DexCom and Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc. entered into a settlement and license agreement in 2014, following years of patent litigation over their competing glucose monitoring system patents. The governing agreement included a Covenant Period and a forum selection clause that DexCom argued was breached by Abbott’s filing of eight IPR petitions following the expiration of the Covenant Period and 10 months after DexCom filed an infringement suit against Abbott in the Western District of Texas.