Posts Tagged: "covered business method review"

One Administrative Patent Judge — Judge Meredith Petravick — dissented. Petravick said it was inappropriate for the PTAB to terminate the ‘304 patent CBM because the parties were different when compared to the Federal Circuit case. Petravick said that the review should be limited to the record of the ‘304 patent and not consider extraneous, out of record matters such as a Federal Circuit determination that the very same claims are, in fact, patent eligible. Petravick dissented saying that he would find the claims to the graphical user interface just found patent eligible by the Federal Circuit to be patent ineligible.

In the piece, Lee tries her best to assure readers that positive developments have been made at the USPTO in recent years, but at multiple points she seems blind to major issues that have plagued U.S. patent system stakeholders during her tenure… Perhaps the most abrasive thing Lee stated in her editorial was this: “Our stakeholders share my belief, and that of my USPTO colleagues, that there is a cost to society when this agency issues a patent that should not issue…” No, Ms. Lee, a great many stakeholders do NOT share your belief. They don’t share your belief primarily because by making this statement you shine light on a largely fictitious problem while simultaneously ignoring the real problem facing the Office, which is that patent examiners refuse to issue any patents at all on good, high quality innovations that deserve patent protection.

Activist Supreme Court decisions in the last decade have been principally responsible for these changes, stimulated by aggressive technology company incumbent lobbying. The combination of these decisions has had a far greater effect on the patent system and the economy than the Court originally intended. The U.S. is now in a compulsory licensing regime in which large technology incumbents that control at least 80% of collective market share employ an “efficient infringement” model of ignoring patents and forcing patent holders to enforce patent rights in the courts.

The Federal Circuit has found claims to a graphical user interface (GUI) patent to be patent eligible. See Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc. The decision of the panel, authored by Judge Newman and joined by Judge O’Malley and Judge Wallach, is noteworthy for several reasons. First, the Court did not believe that their ruling affirming the district court to merit a precedential designation. This would suggest that the panel did not believe the decision would add to the body of precedential law, which would appear to make this an easy case for the panel. Second, the claims that have been found to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 in this “easy decision” are currently under review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in a Covered Business Method (CBM) review because the PTAB believed the graphical user interface patent claims are likely patent ineligible.

For the year patent infringement cases dropped by 22 percent from the previous year, from 5,823 cases in 2015 down to 4,520 cases in 2016. 2016 actually saw the lowest number of patent infringement lawsuits filed since 2011, when 3,578 cases were filed. There was no month during 2016 where more than 460 patent suits were filed; both 2014 and 2015 had at least one month where more than 650 patent suits were filed in district court.

The high water mark for the PTAB came in June 2016 when the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee, which ruled that the broadest reasonable interpretations (BRI) standard was acceptable, and that IPR institution decisions were not appealable. After that, however, the tide turned decidedly with the Federal Circuit finding the PTAB acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and that they were blatantly using the wrong definition of a covered business method (CBM) patent to institute challenges on patents that were not financial business methods. The year ends with the Federal Circuit considering whether the PTAB’s refusal to allow motions to amend, despite the statute saying they are allowed, is within their discretion. The writing seems to be on the wall and 2016 seems to be ending with the PTAB in a very different place than it was at the start of the year.

To come up with the list below I’ve reviewed all of our patent articles, and have come up with these top 10 patent stories for 2016. They appear in chronological order as they happened throughout the year. Just missing the top 10 cut were the Supreme Court denying cert. in Sequenom and the USPTO being sued for Director Lee declaring a federal holiday. As interesting as those stories may have been, there was far more consequential patent news in 2016. Also missing the cut, but particularly interesting were the rather egregious and insulting response filed in an Office Action in September, and the embarrassing concurring decision by Judge Mayer in Intellectual Ventures. While the latter two were truly train wreck moments, they were fleeting. Judge Mayer has completely marginalized himself on the Federal Circuit with no one embracing his extreme and inaccurate reading of Alice, and that type of albeit cringe-worthy and unprofessional response to an Office Action happens very rarely.

When the America Invents Act (AIA) was being formulated, from about 2005 – 2011, nothing was more subject to change bill-to-bill than the proposed “1st look” and “2nd look” procedures for issued US patents. Should the U.S. have a regular opposition procedure, or should existing inter partes reexam just be tweaked? The AIA final result is the universally dis-liked post grant troika known as PGR, IPR, and CBM… For today I will confine my remarks (and associated fixes) to three truly bad ideas that in practice have played out as particularly egregious. More specifically: (1) the lack of standing required for inter partes review (IPR) challenges; (2) the lack of any real ability to amend claims during a post grant proceeding; and (3) the trivially low threshold (i.e., reasonable likelihood) that initiates an IPR.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision to invalidate certain claims in three patents owned by Ameranth. The Court relied heavily on Ameranth’s concessions within the specification that certain aspects of the invention were “typical” or “commonly known.” Practitioners should be wary of using such language and should take steps to identify specific technological improvements.

It is that time once again when we look back on the previous year in preparation to close the final chapter on 2016 and to look ahead toward 2017. With patent reform surprisingly stalled, the biggest news stories of the year may have been the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)… As 2016 started and through at least the first half of 2016 it seemed as if the PTAB had become rather all-powerful and completely unsusceptible to judicial restraints. As we close 2016 and look forward to 2017 a decidedly different picture seems like it is emerging… The other big news story of 2016 was with respect to patent eligibility…

Claimed methods incidental or complimentary to financial services are not necessarily reviewable as CBM patents. The claims as they were written must be directed to methods and apparatuses that have particular uses in connection with a financial product or service. For a patent to be a CBM patent, “[i]t is not enough that a sale has occurred or may occur, or even that the specification speculates such a potential sale might occur.”

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.

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).