Posts Tagged: "inter partes"

The next several weeks will see much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth about Allergan’s transaction with the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe. Our point is not to engage in futile “what about-ism…” but rather to illustrate how the PTAB is inherently subject to gamesmanship — from all directions — that destroys systemic credibility, which is undeniably bad for all parties, not just the one whose ox got gored today. As an administrative tribunal, the PTAB isn’t limited to resolving actual “cases or controversies” between parties like Article III courts are. The gates are open to all comers, and so are the unintended consequences.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition for Certiorari in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group, which will result in the Court addressing the constitutionality of post grant proceedings… The impact of the resulting decision in this case may affect patent dispute outcomes not just moving forward, but possibly spanning 5 years into the past… At a (very) high level, there are three possible outcomes arising from the Supreme Court decision that is expected in 2018 that will impact the IPR process: no change, some change, major change.

The respondent immediately takes issue with the argument that patents are not public rights, summarily citing MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 812 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 292, which held that that neither Article III nor the Seventh Amendment bars IPRs, a holding that, according to the respondent, does not conflict with any decision of the Court or any other court of appeals, rendering further review unwarranted.

In arguing that inter partes review (IPR) violates the U.S. Constitution, the petitioner in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC advances two theories. The first is that patents are private rights, not public rights, and therefore suits to invalidate patents must be tried before a jury under the Seventh Amendment. Second, even if the Seventh Amendment is not violated by IPRs, suits for invalidity must be tried in an Article III forum, not in an agency proceeding. The petitioner also takes issue with claim interpretation and claim amendment limitations during IPR, which are beyond the scope of this post.

Earlier today the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe filed a Motion to Dismiss in six separate inter partes review (IPR) proceedings relating to the Allergan drug RESTASIS®. The RESTASIS® patents were recently all assigned by Allergan to the Tribe, with the Tribe granting back to Allergan an exclusive license… As the Motion to Dismiss points out, the petitioners can have an opportunity to challenge these RESTASIS® patents in federal district court. “The Tribe will not assert sovereign immunity in the Eastern District of Texas case,” the Motion to Dismiss reads. ” So dismissing this case does not deprive the Petitioners of an adequate remedy; it only deprives them of multiple bites at the same apple.”

Those now familiar with IPR proceedings will already have recognized how little resemblance current IPR proceedings have to what most supporters of the AIA envisioned upon its passage. In current practice, the role of the Director as an independent IPR gatekeeper never materialized because the USPTO’s implementing rules bypass the Director altogether, assigning the institution function to the PTAB, which in turn routinely assigns both the institution and final decisions to the same three judge panel. As a result, most of the safeguards against patent owner harassment were lost…. By failing to adopt the implementing rules needed to carry out the intent of the AIA, and by adopting other rules and procedures that are plainly skewed towards petitioners, the PTAB has intentionally tilted its IPR proceedings against patent owners. While this has been good for the PTAB, which has quadrupled in size, it was neither Congress’s intent nor that of most of AIA’s supporters to create an unfair IPR patent “killing field.”

To fix the current incarnation of the U.S. patent system and reinvigorate the American economy, Judge Michel called upon the House IP subcommittee to adopt seven specific action items. Five of the action items relate to improvements to patent law for the strengthening of patent rights while optimizing PTAB procedures already in place, while two other action items focus on the administration of the USPTO.

A few dozen amici briefs have been filed in the case, including one filed on August 30th by 39 patent owners affected by PTAB activities in support of the petitioner Oil States. These patent owners have either already or are currently faced PTAB validity trials challenging their patents through inter partes review (IPR) or other post grant review (PGR) proceedings. The amici argue that the affected patent owners are in a unique position to provide perspective to the Supreme Court on the question of extinguishing patent rights through a non-Article III forum.

The tribe is raising a sovereign immunity defense in the case as the tribe is a sovereign entity which is not amenable to a suit unless it consents or Congress abrogates its immunity. Shore argued that the sovereign immunity defense is based on binding Supreme Court precedent. “It would frankly be unprecedented for the board to deny the tribe the right to seek a dismissal before conducting the hearing on the merits,” Shore said… On seven occasions during the call, Torczon called the sale of the patents to the St. Regis tribe a “sham” transaction, arguing that the tribe didn’t purchase the patents but rather were paid to take them. Torczon drew parallels between the patent sale and racketeering cases in the context of lending fraud. “So facially this transaction is a sham.

On Monday, August 7th, a judicial panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit entered a decision in Personal Audio, LLC v. Electronic Frontier Foundation which is being widely hailed by the anti-patent crowd. The three judges on the panel issued a majority opinion, authored by Circuit Judge Pauline Newman, upheld a final written decision issued by…

In an IPR brought by Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Personal Audio appealed a Board determination that invalidated its patent for storing and distributing episodic media files. Personal Audio challenged the Board’s claim construction, but the Court affirmed the Board. Before reaching the merits, the Court addressed whether EFF had standing to participate in the appeal in view of Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation. In that case, a non-profit organization representing the public interest did not have standing to appeal a PTAB decision, because it did not meet the Article III case-and-controversy requirement.

The Board declined to provide a construction of “settling speed” and determined that the claims were not invalid as anticipated. Homeland appealed… When parties dispute the proper scope of claims, the Board must provide an explicit claim construction. The Court may construe the claims de novo. When comparing prior art evidence to properly construed claims, the Court may disregard expert testimony if it is plainly inconsistent with the written record, even if the testimony was unrebutted.

In order to begin restoring patent rights and respect for the presumption of validity changes must be made to constrain the PTO post grant procedures… Patent holders that have IPRs, PGRs or CBMs instituted must be given the option to select two different claim interpretation standards. First, they can select the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard, which will allow claims to be amended with N auxiliary claim sets to enable the PTAB to select a preferred claim set. Second, they can select the narrower Phillips standard, applied in the U.S. District Courts, which are applied to refer to infringement analysis, by waiving the patent owner’s right to amend claims in the patent under review.

IPRs introduced an asymmetric component which particularly burdens the patent holder by requiring a very expensive ten-fold higher cost to defend the patent in the PTAB relative to the alleged infringer(s) cost of initiating an IPR. In sum, then, by writing the AIA for self-benefit, the big tech industry did an end run around i4i, breached the presumption of patent validity and pushed patent validity determinations back to the PTO with the objective to deny patent holders critical due process rights. The main impetus to persuade Congress to initiate this after grant review process lied in the false narrative of the big tech cartel that patents issued by the PTO are of a poor quality.