Posts Tagged: "Oil States"

The PTAB subjects all patent owners to double jeopardy, but the situation is particularly bad for pharmaceutical companies which already have to face a Congressionally-mandated validity review process under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, colloquially known as Hatch-Waxman. This law creates a regime by which a generic drugmaker can file an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The branded pharmaceutical listed in the Orange Book will be covered by patents but the generic drugmaker can include a Paragraph IV certification in the ANDA, a declaration that the patents covering the Orange Book-listed drug are unenforceable and invalid. When a company like Allergan has to face Hatch-Waxman validity trials in federal district court and serial IPRs at the PTAB, it turns Allergan’s Restasis patents into piñatas taking hit after hit at multiple forums before being finally ripped asunder at some point.

U.S. Inventor, the nationwide inventor advocacy organization representing over 13,000 members, including, individual inventors, university research institutions, patent holders and intellectual property dependent start-up businesses, today announced that its members will stage a protest in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on November 27th during oral arguments in the case of Oil States Energy Services, LLC v Greene’s Energy Group, LLC.

Although patent litigation levels through the first nine months of 2017 have largely remained consistent with patterns from recent years, it does appear that the number of patent suits filed in U.S. district courts has been on a slow decline in recent years. There were a total of 995 patent lawsuits filed in district court during 2017’s third quarter, an 8.4 percent decline when compared to totals from 2016’s third quarter. Year-over-year declines in patent suit filing were also seen in the first and second quarters of 2016 as well. As Lex Machina data scientist Brian Howard notes, 2017 continued a trend in which patent suit filings tend to drop in the first quarter of the year, rise during the second quarter and then fall again during the third quarter. “Historically, that’s a pattern that we’ve seen pretty consistently in the past few years,” Howard said.

This experiment in patent validity review an executive agency by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an Article I tribunal in the PTO, has been unsuccessful…The chief constraints of the public rights doctrine involve consent and due process by an Article I tribunal and review of tribunal determinations by an Article III court. None of these features are present in the PTAB review of issued patents. In fact, the PTAB has shown a massive number of institutional abuses of IPRs that have undermined its legitimacy and negated its determinations… Ultimately, it will be shown that PTAB has vastly worse patent validity review results than federal district courts because of a blatant disregard for due process. As a consequence of these observations, it should be clear that the PTO is susceptible to political influences by the powerful technology lobby’s false narrative of poor quality patents that resulted in creation of a sanctimonious mechanism for patent validity review to constrain competition from market entrants, with an effect to promote technology incumbent profits.

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.

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.

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.’”

“We began noticing that key appointments in the Trump Administration were going to Republicans who were very anti-patent,” Caputo noted. These appointments include Vishal Amin, who Trump selected to serve as Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) within the office of the President. Amin had an important role in drafting the America Invents Act of 2011, especially those provisions regarding the PTAB which was just targeted by US Inventor’s protest. Caputo also raised concerns over the potential patent views of Joseph Matal, who is currently the acting Director of the USPTO. Many inventors believe Matal is lobbying to remain the Director and not just serve in the interim after Michelle Lee’s resignation.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari only on the first question, whether inter partes review violates the U.S. Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury… The grant of certiorari in this case is particularly noteworthy given that the United States was asked by the Supreme Court for its views and opined in its brief that the petition should be denied… Over the last several years 8 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices have signed on to an opinion that has recognized that a patent confers either an exclusive or valuable property right.