Posts Tagged: "amicus briefs"

The motion of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe (“the Tribe”) is based on the misplaced theory that Tribal Sovereign Immunity is applicable to administrative proceedings before the PTAB. While the Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that, as a matter of judicial construct, Native American Tribes (like the Tribe) can be immune from “suits” in a court absent abrogation or waiver (see Paper 81, at 8), such immunity does not extend to all government action. See, e.g., Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 755 (1998). In this regard, a PTAB proceeding is not a “suit” in court, but instead an administrative proceeding in which the Office (through the PTAB) takes “a second look at an earlier administrative grant of a patent.” Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144 (2016) (“Cuozzo”).

October 30th was a very busy day for amici filing briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court on how the highest court in the nation should decide in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, a case in which oral arguments will be heard on November 27th. Many of the briefs filed on the 30th were submitted by some of the biggest names in the tech industry. Taking a look at briefs filed by this major companies, some of whom have been seeing great success in patent validity trials at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), it’s both revealing and unsurprising to find how the tech ruling class feels that the Supreme Court should decide in Oil States.

A review of amici briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC provides evidence of a stark split in how various stakeholders in the U.S. patent system view the patent validity challenge activities ongoing at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Whereas many of the world’s largest tech companies who have a dominant advantage in the consumer marketplace are in favor of the PTAB remaining active, many small entities and individual inventors are greatly opposed to the PTAB and its differing standards on patent validity leading to a higher rate of invalidation than in Article III district court proceedings. A look at amici briefs coming from law professors can shed some light on where the academic sector comes down on the subject of the PTAB’s constitutionality.

The government’s brief argues that IPR proceedings at the PTAB are consistent with Article III because, in its view, patents are public rights and not private ones and the right for an inventor to seek a patent is a public right. In the government’s eyes, it is constitutionally permissible for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to reassess previously issued patents for revoking in order to “correct its own errors.” If the PTAB errs, then patent owners have legal recourse in appealing those cases to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the government argues.

A review of amicus briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in advance of oral arguments in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC revealed that, by and large, the American tech ruling class wishes to see SCOTUS leave the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) intact in the face of the constitutional challenges facing the PTAB in the case. Today, we’ll review a series of briefs filed by amici representing many of the smaller players in the U.S. patent system who have by and large been railroaded at the PTAB, an agency which invalidates patents at an incredibly high rate, fails to follow Congressional statutes regulating its own activities and stacks administrative patent judge (APJ) panels to achieve policy objectives desired by the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Many district courts have interpreted Alice as authorizing invalidation of issued patents as “abstract” based solely on the pleadings. They have done so even where the invalidation rests on resolution of a disputed issue of fact or of claim construction or scope. In short, since Alice, the Federal Circuit has done nothing to clear up the district courts’ confusion, but instead has affirmed pleading invalidations more than 90 percent of the time. Nothing in Alice, or Mayo for that matter, authorized these “pleadings invalidations.” Whether you agree with the decisions or not, both Alice and Mayo, were decided on summary judgment.

Several of the briefs address the absurdity currently being advanced, claiming patents are so-called “public rights.” This novel notion — more in line with Karl Marx than John Locke — is a direct assault upon the very essence of private property rights… The Cato-ACUF brief reasons “public rights” into a sniveling lump: “Ultimately, the implications of the argument that merely because a right to particular property flows from a statutory scheme, such rights are ‘public rights’ and that disputes over them can be withdrawn from Article III courts are staggering. Such a conclusion would mean that anyone who derives his land title from the Homestead Act can be forced to have any disputes over that property be resolved by a bureaucrat in the Bureau of Land Management. Under this view, Congress could require that a dispute between an individual and a private financial institution over a mortgage or a student loan be heard before an official in the Treasure Department on the theory that the relevant loans were made pursuant to a federal statutory scheme. The government enacts statutes affecting property rights all the time, but that does not convert the rights that trace their roots to such statutes into ‘public rights.’”

Since the Supreme Court’s Alice decision, district courts and the Federal Circuit have been ruling on what they perceive as the “abstractness” of patents—not with analysis of the claimed invention, but by referring broadly to a patent’s field of invention, the problems a patent sets out to solve, even generalizations about what the patent means to the court. This is a marked departure from the historical analysis of patent claims. Disturbingly, this process can be used to invalidate any patent because it is based on broad generalities and assumptions rather than precisely defined and examined claims. While some applaud the courts’ actions as helping to extinguish so called “bad patents,” valid and enforceable patents are being destroyed as well. The resulting destruction of valuable intellectual property damages America’s innovating community… Appellant Evolutionary Intelligence has secured a 30-day extension to file the combined petition, now due April 19, 2017. Amicus briefs in support of the petition are due on April 26, 2017. FCR 29.

The Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument in Lee v. Tam for January 18… The genesis of the case is a Portland, Oregon all-Asian-American band called The Slants, founded by petitioner Simon Shiao Tam. An application for trademark was made and the USPTO said “NO” on the basis that “The Slants” is a highly disparaging term and therefore must be denied registration under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act… The cultural and societal value of the free flow of speech trumps government regulation. The Supreme Court should uphold the Constitution and confirm the importance of robust political debate, cultural discourse, and the right to use ANY words as part of a personal identity.

Amici agree with Petitioner that this procedure was beyond Congress’s power to impose, and its underpinning rationale—that patents are a matter of administrative largesse, rather than the constitutionally protected property right—is constitutionally infirm. Amici write separately because this case presents an issue of enormous significance with far-reaching consequences for inventors, investors, and small-business owners. The institution of IPR review has made patents more expensive to obtain and defend, and has introduced uncertainty in patent rights that makes patents less valuable to their holders, less attractive to inventors, and less safe for investors. This devaluation of patent rights has measurably diminished the value of all patents.