Posts Tagged: "aia"

Now that Trump has won, the discussion has narrowed to whether Trump will keep patents weak or make patents great again. From the outside perspective, it is a curious exercise to say the least… Why are we even asking these questions? Property is property, right? Can you remember an election where people were asking if their deed would keep squatters out of their living room depending on who won the presidency? I don’t. It seems a preposterous question. After all, the deed on your house is a property right and everybody knows the government will back it up and eject the squatters. So why then do we, or should we, have to ask whether a Trump Administration will be in favor of strong patent rights? It all seems bizarre to say the least.

The PTAB used the wrong standard to institute the CBM proceeding in the first place, which lead the Federal Circuit to vacate the PTAB decision and remand the case for further consideration by the PTAB – namely the application of the proper standard… As the Federal Circuit would point out later: “All patents, at some level, relate to potential sale of a good or service.” To allow this PTAB created standard that has no textual support in the statute to be applied would be to allow virtually any patent to be the subject of a CBM. That was clearly was not the intent of Congress and it would fly directly and unambiguously in the face of the explicit language of the statute. The PTAB is significantly limited in their power to institute a CBM.

Stifling innovation and curtailing investments are the effects of the AIA from what I see and hear. This is infuriating! It is disincentivizing inventors, innovators and investors! Before last year I have never been an activist or protested anything publically. The AIA issue has change that for me… We are standing to protect the rights of Americans to profit from their ideas. The patent system has been broken and rigged to suit corporations. Stealing IP is cheaper than developing it…

The Federal Circuit denied appellant SAS’s petition for rehearing en banc from a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, without an explanatory opinion. Judge Newman dissented. Without discussing the facts of the case, she undertook to review the statutory provisions for inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings under the America Invents Act (“AIA”). According to Newman, the Court should have granted the petition, in order to correct the Patent Office position that “the final order of the [Patent Trial and Appeal] Board need not address every claim raised in the petition for review.” According to Judge Newman, a review of the statutory provisions of the AIA makes it clear that, if the PTAB decides to institute review, it should do so for all of the challenged claims, not just some of the challenged claims.

As more reports come out that patent filings for individuals and small businesses are down and a general recognition that real innovation does not come from large organizations, but rather small ones, it is becoming clearer that changes in our laws have decreased the previous standards that were in place to “promote the progress of science and useful arts.” As such, it seems to this author that our current patent laws are unconstitutional, or at the very least are thoroughly and completely frustrating the constitutional purpose for which they were created since our laws are promoting less and not “securing” our discoveries. We need to strengthen our patent laws to have a system that promotes the progress of science and useful arts by efficiently and affordably securing for inventors the exclusive rights to their discoveries and innovations.

The Track One program was instituted on September 23, 2011, as part of the America Invents Act. Known officially as the “Prioritized Patent Examination Program,” the USPTO promises a final disposition within 12 months for applicants who participate in the program and who pay the $4,000 fee for the privilege. To be eligible for participation in the program, an application can have no more than four independent claims and 30 dependent claims and no multiple dependent claims. Per USPTO regulations, applicants can request examination under the Track One program either from the date of original filing or with an RCE. We wanted to find out how beneficial the Track One program was for applicants who entered it at the beginning of prosecution versus at the RCE. The Track One program was ripe for study, which we originally started in 2015. This article is an update on our original findings, with a few new surprises thrown in.

Both petitioners’ and patent owners’ reliance on blog articles in the course of post grant proceedings has been approximately equal. However, the manner in which the blog articles were used did vary widely based on the litigator’s position during the proceeding. For petitioners, blog articles were most often cited to construe the claims (Apotex Inc. v. Amgen Inc., IPR2016-01542, Paper 2, p.69), were introduced as previous publications of an expert witness in order to help prove their qualifications (Samsung Electronics Co., v. Papst Licensing, IPR2016-01733, Ex. 1014, p. 99), or were used to bolster the credentials of one or more of the representing attorneys (Google, Inc. et al v. Smartflash, CBM2015-00132, Paper 17, p. 2). For patent owners, blog articles were most often referenced to provide support to summarize and clarify certain legal standards such as claim construction standards (Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., IPR2015-01615, Paper 12, p. 8), to clarify legislative history and identify Congressional intent (Coalition for Affordable Drugs VII v. Pozen, IPR2015-01241, Paper 13, p. 47), and to rebut the petitioner’s expert testimony by attacking the expert’s credibility (Coalition for Affordable Drugs VII v. Pharmacyclics, IPR2015-01076, Paper 20, p. 13).

Perhaps the most challenging to accept is the notion that a tribunal created with a specific purpose of invalidation can be impartial to both the petitioners and the defendants. The AIA tribunal stands in contrast to the Court system, as their inherent mission is not to evaluate, but to challenge, contest, and invalidate. In addition, a “winners and losers” system, allowing one party to outspend the other, or to create joinders to outnumber the other, remains very damaging to the inventors, investors and small businesses.

As the above cases illustrate, PTAB decisions have affected district court cases in different ways. Determining whether the use of a PTAB decision is likely to be permitted or will have any effect requires a multifactorial analysis that considers at least the nature of the PTAB outcome (e.g., final or preliminary), factors contributing to that outcome (e.g., whether they were based on the merits of the case), and potential drawbacks attached to the requested use (e.g., jury confusion). Additional considerations might include, for example, the level of sophistication of the technology already being considered by the jury, which might factor into a court’s analysis of the likelihood of jury confusion. Parties seeking to rely on PTAB decisions in district court should consider these factors. The AIA has only been in place for five years and the law in this area will continue to develop over the next several years.

All of the post grant challenges ushered in by the America Invents Act (AIA) were a bad idea. They never should have been created in the first place. All the post grant proceedings have done is make infringing patents a more economical choice, while making it more costly for innovators to obtain and keep the protection they need to make innovating a worthwhile endeavor. It was all too predictable that a new tribunal would over assert its own jurisdiction, but the breadth of just how arbitrary, capricious and fundamentally unfair the process would be was simply not predictable.

Unfortunately, Mr. President, after five years I cannot report back that the AIA has yet ”improve[d] patent quality and help[ed] give entrepreneurs the protection and the confidence they need to attract investment, to grow their businesses, and to hire more workers.” The current implementation of PTO post issuance proceedings is undermining confidence in our patent system, chilling innovation at its roots, and, in eyes of some, giving the AIA a bad name.

To investigate whether applicants have been adopting a strategy of filing more provisional applications, we determined a ratio of the number of provisional filings (with a first-named inventor identified as being a resident of the U.S.) relative to the number of utility filings (with a first-named inventor identified as being a resident of the U.S.). As shown in Figure 2, this ratio also exhibited an uptick in fiscal year 2013, but the ratio has since returned to Fiscal-Year-2012 levels. Thus, this data suggests that applicants have generally not changed their filing strategies to file more provisional applications in view of the AIA’s change to define prior art based on applications’ filing dates.

Although what qualifies as art under the AIA can be distilled to disclosures before a patent application, both pre-AIA and AIA created exceptions for intervening disclosures in Section 102(a)(2). Intervening disclosures are defined by an earlier filing date, but a later publication date and are sometimes referred to as secret prior art. Intervening disclosures apply only to US patents, US publications, and PCT applications. Other types of disclosures, such as disclosures at a Beijing conference in Chinese would need to be considered under Section 102(a)(1). Where is this expansion for intervening disclosures going to come from? Mainly from two primary sources: 1) US patents or publications that have foreign priority claims; and 2) PCT applications published in a language other than English, regardless of foreign priority claim… The potential doubling of available intervening disclosures would create significantly more prior art.

PTAB procedures have rendered worthless around 90% of the patents they see by either invalidating the patent altogether or invalidating the most critical claims. The infringer lobby and the PTO would have us believe that is not the case, but they measure total claims in all challenged patents against total claims invalidated. They ignore that a petitioner selects specific claims and those selected claims are the most critical to the defense of the patent right. This means there is a deliberate, thoughtful and strong selection bias on which claims are challenged and only the most critical are challenged. The strength of most patents hinges on only a couple of the claims so patents with dozens of claims can be rendered worthless by invalidating only one or two claims. Thus invalidating only one claim can doom the entire case and set the infringer free. The PTO’s numbers are either produced with no knowledge of patent litigation or are deliberately misleading.

If Congress, nevertheless, is unmoved by the constitutional arguments for reforming the IPR process, it should weigh the strong economic policy arguments supporting IPR reform, which are outlined in various amicus curiae briefs supporting certiorari. As pointed out in a brief filed on behalf of the Houston Inventors Association, the IPR system “has a great attraction to ‘patent pirates’, companies who [sic] infringe patents and then deny liability, because the IPR has a high rate of success for ‘patent pirates’ to invalidate patents.” In other words, the IPR system facilitates infringers who want to free ride on the fruits of patentees’ labors, thereby ineluctably diminishing marginal incentives for investment in patentable innovations. As a brief filed on behalf of the University of New Mexico explains, the threat of IPR (in particular its anti-patent “death star” reputation), and inconsistencies between PTAB and federal district court patent validity standards, devalue and harm university patents.