Posts Tagged: "inter partes"

Notice what APJ Harlow wrote relating to IPR2017-01068 is word for word identical to what APJ Bisk wrote relating to IPR2017-01186. Indeed, the entirety of the concurring opinions are word for word identical. Obviously, the concurring opinions were shared internally in some form or fashion prior to being issued by the PTAB. But why? It seems perfectly reasonable for the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe to want to know who actually wrote these two concurring opinions. Did APJ Harlow and APJ Bisk cooperate and jointly write a single concurring opinion filed in two separate cases? Why would two APJs not assigned to the same case take it upon themselves to collaborate in writing a single concurring opinion? Are APJs not assigned to a case typically consulted? Did someone else write those opinions for APJ Harlow and APJ Bisk to make sure this particular viewpoint was incorporated into the decisions? How did APJ Harlow and APJ Bisk have access to the concurring opinions each would file?

Supporters of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) continue to claim that the facts and figures showing the PTAB is overruling Article III federal district court adjudication on patent validity is fictitious. Ignoring the truth doesn’t make the truth any less correct. Still, in some circles the fiction spewed by those who champion the patent killing fields of the PTAB continues to be persuasive… More alarming, in many of the cases where the PTAB has overruled district court adjudication of the patents there were findings of willful infringement, meaning the defendants (and ulitmately the IPR petitioners) knowingly and intentionally infringed the patents adjudicated to contain valid claims. Notwithstanding, the PTAB, dutifully complied with their role as executioner of patents.

Inter Partes Review proceedings (IPRs) are subject to statutory timing provisions. The Court, sitting en banc, reviewed whether PTAB decisions determining whether an IPR was timely filed are appealable. More specifically, the Court considered whether the bar on judicial review of institution decisions, under Section 314(d), applies to the Board’s time-bar determinations, under Section 315(b)… Time-bar determinations by the patent office are reviewable by the Federal Circuit.

The St. Regis tribe is seeking discovery on due process concerns posed by the potential of political or third-party pressure asserted to “reach an outcome inconsistent with the binding Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedents.”… The St. Regis tribe is seeking the oral hearing to push for discovery in a total of 18 topics. These topics include the makeup of the panels in the St. Regis proceedings, the date each APJ was added to the panel, how the makeup of the panel was decided, who determined the makeup of the merits panel, when the decision on the panel’s makeup was made as well as the disclosure of all ex parte communications concerning the St. Regis case. St. Regis is also seeking communications made on the sovereign immunity issue between specific APJs, including APJs Jacqueline Harlow and Jennifer Bisk.

For my wishes, I’ll make four. First, as I did last year, I again continue to wish for patent eligibility reform in Congress that would overrule Mayo, Myriad and Alice.With there major industry organizations coming out in 2017 to support legislative reform perhaps this wish will eventually come true, although as of now it seems to be a long shot in 2018. Second, I hope the Federal Circuit dramatically decreases its use of Rule 36 affirmances, and specifically stops using this docket management tool when cases are appealed from the PTAB and also with respect to appeals dealing with 101 patent eligibility issues. Third, I wish for the AIA post grant procedures to be declared unconstitutional, which with the Supreme Court set to decide Oil States in 2018 is at least plausible. Finally, assuming the Supreme Court does not do away with post grant challenges, I wish for the new PTO Director to dramatically reform the post grant process in ways that remove the systemic biases that have made the proceedings hopelessly one-sided against patent owners.

In HTC Corp. v. Cellular Communs. Equip., Appellants HTC Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. (“HTC”) appeal a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) in an inter partes review. The Board instituted inter partes review of challenged claims in patents owned by Appellee Cellular Communications Equipment, LLC’s (“CEE”). The PTAB concluded that HTC failed to show that any of the challenged claims were unpatentable… There is no need for the PTAB to explicitly construe claim terms if the PTAB’s findings were sufficient to establish its understanding of the scope of the claimed subject matter.

An expanded panel of the PTAB, in a majority opinion authored by Chief Judge David Ruschke, agreed with the University of Minnesota that an IPR proceeding is an adjudicatory proceeding of a federal agency from which state entities may be immune. Nevertheless, the PTAB ruled that the University of Minnesota had “waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity by filing an action in federal court alleging infringement of the patent being challenged in this proceeding.”

The Federal Circuit decision in the case of CRFD Research v. Matal resolves three appeals involving a single patent: CRFD’s ‘233 patent describing methods and systems that allow a user to begin a session on one communication-enabled device and transfer it to another… Lack of anticipation based on a single reference does not preclude a finding of obviousness based on the same reference. Even if a reference’s is insufficient for anticipation, which is a question of fact, that same reference teachings may be used to find obviousness, a question of law based on underlying factual findings.

A new study of proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) shows that, despite the initial reputation of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings being that of patent killers, patent owners are winning more cases than ever. The study, conducted by law firm Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, shows that the rate at which patent claims were found unpatentable by the PTAB fell significantly in 2016, while the volume of claims in dispute rose dramatically. The study found that in every quarter of 2016, the reviewed final written decisions resulted in more than half of the claims originally challenged in IPR proceedings surviving. By contrast, in the previous two years, the survival rate of such claims exceeded 50 percent only once. In the first quarter of 2014, in fact, less than 20 percent of such claims survived challenge.

Native American tribes possess and exercise inherent sovereign immunity. It is also undisputable that such power may be abrogated, limited or qualified only by the express and unequivocal action of Congress. In Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly affirmed that no court or administrative agency may interfere with that power absent Congressional legislation… The Court again in Bay Mills reiterated that absent congressional limitations, tribes exercise unqualified immunity. The Court even went so far as to note that “a fundamental commitment of Indian law is judicial respect for Congress’s primary role in defining the contours of tribal sovereignty.”

Tribal sovereignty is not a “sham” or a “contrivance,” even when it produces results Petitioners do not like. There is no dispute that the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe is what the Supreme Court has termed a “domestic dependent nation[]” entitled to tribal sovereign immunity and that its agreement with Allergan is a legitimate contract… Moreover, Petitioners’ objections are being raised in the wrong forum. Congress – rather than the Board, the Article II executive, or even the Article III courts – controls the availability of tribal sovereign immunity.

Doubtless there are some manufacturing firms, such as Telebrands, who are great endorsers of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and how that agency has found in favor of copy-cats even as federal courts have repeatedly issued injunctions and found in favor of the inventor of an award winning toy (see here and here).But the manufacturing sector did not all line up in favor of Greene’s Energy Group, although most did. Nevertheless, given that manufacturing firms tend to license patents and do not necessarily develop their own technologies, it is informative to see how this sector feels that the Supreme Court should decide Oil States.

A jury verdict recently entered in a patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas held that plaintiff Packet Intelligence, a patent owning entity headquartered in Marshall, TX, did not prove infringement of claims from three patents asserted against Canadian communications service solutions provider Sandvine Corporation (TSE:SVC). The jury verdict comes less than one month after Packet Intelligence won a jury verdict of infringement on the same asserted patents in a different Eastern Texas case filed against Westford, MA-based application and network performance management firm NetScout Systems (NASDAQ:NTCT).

On the afternoon of Wednesday, November 29th, the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing to consider the nomination of four political appointees from the Trump Administration. Included among the days’ nominees was Andrei Iancu, President Trump’s selection to serve as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Though the nomination hearing was brief and Iancu’s remarks were very measured, there would be reason for patent owners to think that a more balanced playing field at the USPTO could start to form should Iancu be confirmed as Director of the agency.

In justifying the constitutionality of the inter partes review (“IPR”) statute enacted by the America Invents Act (“AIA”), a common refrain persistently asserted is that patent rights emanate solely from federal statute and are therefore public rights, derived from a “federal regulatory scheme.” Another reprise is the remedial tenor of the IPR statute: Congress merely authorized a “narrow” post-issuance means for the agency to “correct its own errors.” My paper shows that both contentions above are without merit; that the exclusive patent right emanates from the inventor – not from Congress – and therefore the right adjudicated in IPRs is a “private right”; and that the notion of post-issuance “error correction” is fiction, as it overlooks the irreversible and uncorrectable exchange of rights upon patent issuance.