Posts Tagged: "Patent Trial and Appeal Board"

The government’s brief argues that IPR proceedings at the PTAB are consistent with Article III because, in its view, patents are public rights and not private ones and the right for an inventor to seek a patent is a public right. In the government’s eyes, it is constitutionally permissible for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to reassess previously issued patents for revoking in order to “correct its own errors.” If the PTAB errs, then patent owners have legal recourse in appealing those cases to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the government argues.

Is a patent a property right? It certainly has been considered so for over 200 years. If it is a property right, to invalidate it should require an Article III (judicial) court with all the normal due process required to invalidate property right… The US Supreme Court will look at these issues when it deliberates Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, starting Monday morning, November 27th. US Inventor, the premier non-profit fighting for inventors’ rights, will be staging a demonstration to bring attention to the issue. You have the unique opportunity to come and be a part of history as we make our voices heard.

In two final decisions and five decisions on IPR institution, the PTAB panel of administrative patent judges (APJs) found that petitioners Apple and AT&T did not meet the required burden of proof to invalidate two VoIP-Pal patents. In the final written decisions, Apple and AT&T failed to prove invalidity of the challenged claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Similarly, the PTAB found that neither party had shown a reasonable likelihood of invalidity at the institution stage in the other cases. Along with last November’s denial of an IPR petition filed by Unified Patents, the VoIP-Pal patents have been unscathed through a total of eight IPR petitions.

The USPTO issued a final rule to set or adjust certain patent fees as the agency is authorized to do under the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011. The fee increases, which include some significant increases to petitioners filing for inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, are ostensibly meant to cover costs for USPTO operations, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) operations and administrative services as the USPTO attempts to achieve strategic goals including backlog reductions and “patent quality enhancements.”… The OMB’s determination of the new fees as a “transfer payment” means that the rule isn’t subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13771, titled Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs and signed on January 30th of this year.

Luckily for Apple and Microsoft, however, VirnetX did not assert the ‘135 patent against Mangrove Partners, a hedge fund, which filed a petition for IPR against the ‘135 patent on April 14th, 2015; Mangrove reportedly shorted VirnetX stock around this time. On October 7th, 2015, the PTAB panel adjudicating the case decided to institute the IPR as the petitioner Mangrove had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving invalidity of the challenged claims. Then in January 2016, Apple was successful in having its petition for IPR review of the challenged ‘135 claims joined to Mangrove’s IPR. VirnetX had objected to Apple’s motion for joinder based on the Section 315(b) language but the PTAB found that Section 315(b) did not apply to joinder motions which are governed by 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).

The PTO reports a case as affirmed if all claims are rejected for at least one issue on appeal and reversed if all claims are reversed for at least one ground of rejection. A case is only reported affirmed-in-part by the PTO’s statistics if at least one claim remains standing, regardless of which legal issue ((§101, §103, §112, etc.) the claim was originally rejected. Since a large portion of PTAB ex parte appeals involve rejections over more than one ground of rejection (between 35%-45% according to this statistical estimate), this reporting process masks what the PTAB is deciding on each legal issue presented to it. Because the USPTO data does not report the outcome of each legal issue in multiple issue cases, it is impossible to collect statistically meaningful data on outcomes of specific legal issues from the data set from the FOIA website.

It is no secret that the fortunes of Mountain View, CA-based tech conglomerate Alphabet Inc. are largely based upon the advertising revenues accrued through its subsidiary Google and its incredibly popular search engine. The company’s most recent earnings report for the third quarter of 2017 shows that, of the company’s $22.5 billion in revenues for the quarter, $19.8 billion came from Google advertising revenues. That’s nearly 90 percent of Google’s entire revenues for the third quarter; the rest comes from Google’s other revenues ($2.4 billion) and Alphabet’s Other Bets ($197 million). The name of the corporation may be Alphabet but that entity is nothing without Google and its advertising revenues.

The United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in SAS Institute v. Matal on Monday, November 27, 2017. This case will give the Supreme Court the opportunity to declare whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board must issue a written decision covering all claims challenged in an inter partes review proceeding. In advance of this much anticipated hearing, I reached out to a number of industry insiders with a simple question: What are you thoughts and predictions on SAS Institute in advance of Supreme Court oral arguments? Their answers follow.

The United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Oil States v. Greene’s Energy Group on Monday, November 27, 2017. This case will give the Supreme Court its first opportunity to address the constitutionality of the inter partes review procedures created by the America Invents Act (AIA). In advance of this much anticipated hearing, I reached out to a number of industry insiders with a simple question: What are you thoughts and predictions on Oil States in advance of Supreme Court oral arguments? Their answers follow… As for my thoughts — I’m going to go out on a limb this time with my prediction that the Supreme Court will find IPRs unconstitutional.

Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, now scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court on November 27, is clearly receiving all the attention this fall. The possibility of finding Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) post grant proceedings unconstitutional cannot be understated. But oral arguments will also be heard on that same day in the less-noticed SAS Institute v. Matal… Should any form of IPRs survive Oil States, the following SAS Institute decision should be watched with equal anticipation. A reversal in SAS Institute will no doubt have you rethinking your PTAB strategy.

Owens Corning v. Fast Felt (Fed. Cir. 2017) illustrates an example of how the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard increases the chances that an obviousness argument could successfully invalidate a patent claim during a post grant patent review proceeding; and make it more difficult to overcome an obviousness rejection during patent prosecution. It also illustrates how broadening a claimed invention’s field of use could be detrimental to the claim’s validity and make it harder to overcome an obviousness rejection. 

What is a bad patent? Congress has established the requirements for obtaining a patent. The patent office grants a patent to applicants when they meet those requirements. It is simple. No trolls involved. If there are bad patents, then either the law is bad, or the patent office is not following the law when they grant the patents. Is the patent office issuing patents that do not meet the requirements set forth by Congress in the Patent Act? Or is the Patent Act too generous in setting forth the conditions for granting a patent?

On Wednesday, October 25th, the Cambridge, MA-based medical research center The Broad Institute filed a brief with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in response to an appeal filed by the University of California stemming from patent interference proceedings playing out at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The Broad Institute’s filing is the latest salvo in a patent battle which has played out between developers of a gene editing technology, which could prove to be very important to the future of fighting disease in humans.

Of the 1,582 patents with a final written decision, 1,343 were found to have defects by the PTAB. That is an 85% defect rate. Only 239 patents were affirmed to be fully compliant with the statutes by the PTAB. Yet the Office of Patent Quality Assurance (OPQA) claims a 6-8% defect rate… 263 patents were found valid in full and fair trials in a court of law and also tried in the shortcut infringer-biased PTAB. Only 63 of them got the same results in both venues. The other 200 the PTAB came to a different conclusion. If the courts are correct then the PTAB is wrong 76% of the time.