Posts in US Supreme Court

Given the fact that the IPR processes at PTAB have been worrisome for many patent owners, the possibility that Merrick Garland would continue his longstanding deference towards federal agencies should cause at least some concern. Many believe the procedures creating the post grant challenges implemented by the America Invents Act (AIA) are not only one-sided against the patent owner, but fundamentally unfair to the point where due process has been compromised. Rubber stamping agency decisions, as the Federal Circuit is doing with the USPTO, would be a terrible mistake and further erode already tattered patent property rights.

This is as straightforward a certiorari candidate as any patent case can be. It is manifestly important: A host of judges and amici have stressed that the result below is untenable— invalidating previously irreproachable inventions and precipitating what Judge Lourie called “a crisis of patent law and medial innovation.” And this is the vehicle this Court needs to provide that clarification: Every opinion below agrees that this case tests Mayo’s uncertain limits by invalidating an otherwise plainly meritorious invention. Here, unlike Mayo, every intuition points towards patent-eligibility. And yet the Federal Circuit felt compelled by Mayo to condemn this meritorious patent—and, a fortiori, the patents underlying an entire, vital field of American healthcare innovation.

While it is certainly possible that the President has narrowed his consideration to these three candidates, history teaches us that strange twists and turns can and do occur in the Supreme Court nominating process. With four years of experience on the Federal Circuit, confirmed to that court unanimously with a 86-0 vote and vocal bipartisan support, Judge Reyna would be the first Mexican-American to become a Supreme Court Justice, he would be the first international trade lawyer to become a Supreme Court Justice, and he would bring 30 years of broad legal experience and IP training to the High Court. The American Bar Association has ranked him as unanimously well-qualified, its highest ranking.

The IPO recently filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. supporting a flexible approach to awarding attorneys’ fees. Oral argument is currently scheduled for April 25, 2016. This case presents an important opportunity for the Supreme Court—consistent with its holding in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 534 (1994)—to resolve a circuit split regarding how to weigh equitable factors in awarding attorneys’ fees in copyright cases. Attorneys’ fees should be based on a review of all equitable factors and not a product of a formulaic approach that disproportionately weighs certain factors more than others.

The AIA and its legislative history do not provide clear and convincing evidence that Congress intended ultra vires agency action by the PTO in holding claims unpatentable to be exempt from judicial review on appeal from a final written decision in an IPR. The Supreme Court should make clear that if the PTO holds claims unpatentable on grounds not set forth in the petition, then that ultra vires conduct is subject to judicial review, not exempt from it.

We along with several other attorneys represent ParkerVision, the plaintiff, which secured a $173 million infringement verdict that the courts subsequently threw out based on their own assessment of the evidence. In this case, the roles of courts and juries are front and center. The Federal Circuit has been dismissive of jury findings. As Judge Newman has observed, the Federal Circuit frequently “reweigh[s] the evidence to reach [the court’s] preferred result, rather than considering whether substantial evidence as presented at the trial supports the verdict that was reached by the jury.” Other judges and scholars have concurred in this view.

The report noted key areas of strength for the American IP environment, including effective trade secret protection, commitment to international treaties, mechanisms for pharmaceutical-related patent and generally appropriate boundaries set by courts on copyright exceptions. Along with narrowing patentability and weak enforcement against counterfeit products, key weaknesses for the U.S. included ambiguity regarding the obligations of Internet service providers (ISPs) to respond to trademark-holder notices of infringement and the need to speed up information sharing between rights holders and border agents to aid in the identification of infringing goods.

Committee chairman Senator David Vitter (R-LA) began the hearing by speaking about the importance of a strong patent system to small businesses all over America, as well as the importance of those small businesses to the U.S. economy. Vitter remarked that small businesses have provided two-thirds of all net new jobs since the 1970s and they also produce 16.5 times more patents per employee than larger enterprises. Recent legislation causing major changes in the country’s patent system, including the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), have made it more difficult to enforce patent rights. “It’s essential to remember that many legitimate owners of intellectual property do not manufacture anything but nonetheless have legitimate claims of patent infringement against other parties,” Vitter said. He was also wary of the “staggering rate” of decline in patent value during recent years, stating that during the past four years patent values have dropped by as much as 80 percent.

Justice Scalia never hid the fact that patent law was his “blind spot”. He also admitted to often taking his cues on IP issues from his colleague Justice Ginsberg. On a Court that has not been kind to patent owners these past years, Justice Scalia, who never feared a bit of controversy, was generally considered as a “staunch defender of patent rights” (as long as they were valid) and viewed them, rightly so, as property. On the other hand, he is also the first Supreme Court Justice to refer explicitly to “patent trolls” (in the Commil case), and not in a good way… He also famously called out the Federal Circuit jurisprudence on obviousness as “gobbledygook.” Google it; it is not exactly a compliment!

Several questions every patent attorney should be asking before responding to an Alice rejection are: (1) How many Alice rejections has the examiner issued? (2) What does he or she consider to be the sticking points of the decision? (3) How many applications that received an Alice rejection were eventually allowed? Once an attorney has the answers to these questions in hand, the path to success in responding to an Alice rejection is considerably clearer.

Chen, an Obama appointee, was confirmed only several years ago by a vote of 97-0. Born in 1968 he is 47 years old, meaning he could easily serve on the Court throughout the next generation, in modern times an important consideration for a Presidential nomination to the High Court. Chen also comes from the Federal Circuit, which is anything but politically controversial, primarily responsible for handling patent appeals. Chen would also become the first Asian American to serve on the Supreme Court, another potentially important consideration for President Obama, who has shown throughout his term in Office that he likes breaking glass ceilings with appointments and nominations. Thus, Chen would have virtually all the same upside as would Srinavasan without any of the baggage that would make confirmation difficult, if not impossible.

While Justice Scalia served on the Supreme Court for nearly three decades, his contributions to the area of intellectual property law were quite limited. Scalia did famously refer to patents as “gobbledegook” during the KSR v. Teleflex oral arguments. Scalia was the only Justice not to sign onto an opinion in Bilski v. Kappos that would have recognized that at least some software is patent eligible. But Justice Scalia did not author any of the major patent decisions considered by the Court during his tenure. The passing of Justice Scalia does not seem likely have much of an impact on intellectual property cases, particularly patent cases. Having said this, I could see legislative history becoming more relevant than anyone would have anticipated just a week ago when the Supreme Court considers Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee.

Recently the United States Supreme Court added an important IPR case to its docket. Normally the Supreme Court does not take a Federal Circuit appeal to compliment the Court on how well they have resolved a particular matter, so it seems safe to bet that the Federal Circuit will be reversed on one or both of the issues take. At the very least the Supreme Court can be expected to make broad statements of law and principle and remand the case for further consideration. In either event the outcome would be welcomed by patent owners. In the meantime as we wait for a decision it will also be interesting to watch and see if the PTAB begins to moderate and whether the Federal Circuit shifts their jurisprudence, as they have been known to do from time to time while awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court.

The victory, if it stands, will encourage more design patent infringement claims, and Apple will likely find itself defending against similar suits in the not so distant future. On December 14, Samsung filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to hear an appeal in the case. Given the economics of future litigation, Apple might quietly hope that the Court takes the opportunity to articulate the appropriate standard for awarding total profit damages for infringement.

The Patent Act itself clearly and unambiguously states that patents are property. See 35 U.S.C. 261. Unfortunately, this property right of Constitutional significance has increasingly come under attack over the last decade. Without either substantial legislative fixes, or a new Administration that orders a new Director of the USPTO to rewrite post grant regulations, no single case could undue the significant damage that has been done to the U.S. patent system by the creation of the PTAB and post grant proceedings. That being said, Cuozzo does offer an excellent opportunity to say enough is enough and fight to protect a Constitutionally critical property right our most respected Founding Fathers thought to be absolutely critical.