Posts Tagged: "covered business methods"

The latest incarnation of the SHIELD Act was introduced on February 27, 2013, and changes direction as if the first iteration were waived off in disgust before it could even lower its gears. SHIELD Act 2, scuttles the “reasonable likelihood of succeeding” idea floated and introduces a new tool aimed at walling off the troll: a bond requirement. If the plaintiff is not an original inventor or assignee, did not make a substantial investment in practicing the invention, or is not a university, that troll must post a bond. Like SHIELD Act 1, SHIELD Act 2 does not require the troll to fire the first shot. Interestingly, under SHIELD Act 2, Facebook would have had to post a bond in its battle against Yahoo! and theoretically an involuntary but necessary party joined as a plaintiff could be required to post bond.

Under what authority does the PTAB ignore specifically recited structure? The authority that the PTAB seems to be relying on to ignore claim terms is unclear and not explained in the opinion in any satisfactory way. It does, however, seem that the fact that the invention can be implemented in any type of computer system or processing environment lead the PTAB to treat the method as one that could be performed on a “general purpose computer,” rather than a specific purpose computer. Thus, the PTAB picks up on the arbitrary and erroneous distinctions between general purpose computer and specific purpose computer without as much as a thought and wholly without factual explanation.

“You’re going to get a claim construction early from the PTAB. In fact, one of the interesting results with the respect to a review of the decisions to initiate inter parted review or covered business method challenges is that the PTAB lays out for you its claim construction findings and its reasons. This may have a tremendous influence on the concurrent litigation and its claim construction. Obviously, the patent owner’s going to say certain things with respect to how the claims should be construed in its patent owner response, but nevertheless such statements may result in a clear disavowel of claim scope. Such admissions will have an impact on the concurrent litigation. Conceptually there are many strategic and tactical issues that are of general applicability to both the litigation and administrative trial.”

A new addition to the program just announced today is David Kappos, who is the immediate former Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Kappos, a life-long employee of IBM prior to taking charge of the USPTO, is now with Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP in New York City. Kappos will discuss the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, specifically discussing ex parte reexamination, the remaining legacy inter partes reexamination cases, inter partes review and the transitional program relating to covered business method patents. His segment will run from 9:15 am to 10:15 am. In addition to being presented live in New York City the program will also be webcast.

Hanlon started with statistics relating to the variety of new procedures that were ushered in as part of either phase one or phase two implementation of the America Invents Act (AIA). He started with prioritized examination, which went into effect on September 26, 2011. Between inception and February 19, 2013, there have been 8,554 requests for prioritized examination, with 94% of requests granted. In those cases where the petition was granted there were only 55 days from petition grant to the First Office Action, and the average days to final disposition has been just 168 days. So far there have been 3,667 final dispositions mailed with 1,828 allowances mailed, which corresponds to an allowance rate of 49.9%, which isn’t bad, but didn’t initially strike me as great either.

Right now the best business to be in at the moment is the patent enforcement business, at least if you are concerning yourself with low-risk monetization with high reward. Between the legacy issue of bad patents, patent auctions and the many who purchase patents, what has started to happen is that the patent system rewards those who have the finances and ability to game the system. But the problem is extraordinarily complex.

Post Grant Review, Inter Partes Review and the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents were instituted with the goal of improving patent quality by giving third parties methods to challenge patents that are less expensive and less involved than litigation. Each of these procedures is a trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) composed of Administrative Patent Judges and subject to Part 42 of 37 C.F.R., Trial Practice Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The trials allow for limited discovery, which has not been available in Ex Parte or Inter Partes Reexamination, the existing procedures for challenging patents in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Because the discovery is limited, it is unlikely that these procedures will be used in cases where large amounts of evidence may be needed to prove patent invalidity.