Posts Tagged: "PGR"

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.

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.

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.”

I want to believe Congress ultimately sought to strengthen the U.S. patent system with the AIA by providing a mechanism to more easily remove a small percentage of granted patents that were being inappropriately used in litigation. Specifically, patents that were being asserted with claim constructions not contemplated when the patent was examined. After all, Congress had been heavily lobbied with the narrative that NPE’s had been stretching patents well beyond the four corners of the granted patent and hurting the integrity of the patent system.

The PTO has increased the number of Board decisions as being precedential (so as to serve as a binding authority) by 36% within the last two years. With respect to the increase in precedential decisions: while a 36% increase is substantial, that translates into only an additional 10 precedential decisions – 2 ex parte appeals and 8 IPRs. The current total number of precedential decisions is 38, broken down into 27 ex parte appeals, 2 interferences, 8 IPRs and 1 CBM. Compare these numbers to the number of ex parte appeals and AIA petitions received in 2017 alone (10165 ex parte appeals, 1853 IPR petitions, 54 CBM petitions, and 40 post-grant review petitions).

Hiring senior associates to be Administrative Patent Judges was a mistake, hiring so many senior associates from the same firm was an even bigger mistake. Making it clear that their job was to kill patents at all costs was inexcusable. Interpreting the rules at every turn to be disadvantageous to patent owners is un-American, violates fundamental notions of fairness of procedure, and tilts the balance so heavily toward challengers that it has become more feared by patent owners than any government agency or body. In short, the PTAB has destroyed the U.S. patent system and the value of U.S. patents. In my opinion, the only solution for the very serious transgressions of the PTAB is to disband this runaway tribunal.

Tinnus argues in its appeal that the PTAB panel applied standards for inter partes review (IPR) proceedings to a trial that was instituted as a PGR. “In its institution decision, the Board incorrectly applied the lower ‘reasonable likelihood’ standard used for IPRs, rather than the higher ‘more likely than not’ standard governing PGRs,” Tinnus’ appeal reads, adding that the PTAB panel didn’t recognize this error in its final written decision.

In late June, the Support Technology and Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience (STRONGER) Patents Act of 2017 was introduced into the U.S. Senate by co-sponsors Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AZ), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI). The bill’s purpose is “to strengthen the position of the United States as the world’s leading innovator by amending title 35, United States Code, to protect the property rights of the inventors that grow the country’s economy.”

Patlex, which dealt with reexamination of applications by an examiner — not by an Article I tribunal — could be considered a next step beyond McCormick. MCM, however, simply cannot be viewed as consistent with either Patlex or McCormick on any level. Indeed, the Supreme Court was abundantly clear in McCormick, which remains good law. The courts of the United States (i.e., Article III courts), not the department that issued the patent, is the only entity vested with the authority to set aside or annul a patent right. Since the PTAB is not a court of the United States, it has no authority to invalidate patent rights. It is just that simple.

“The results from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board reflect the procedures it applies, and in my judgment the procedures are wildly off base,” Judge Michel explained… “We’ve had PTAB final results… whatever the intentions were we don’t have to speculate… we have ample evidence of how it worked in practice. We know it doesn’t work satisfactorily.” *** “I don’t think things are really getting much better,” Kappos said. “We are in what I refer to as the leaky life raft.” When you are stranded and a leaky life raft comes along it looks great, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is still a leaky life raft. “The best you can say about 101 is that it has stabilized in a terrible space.”

Concerns over software and biotechnological innovations being patent eligible, the omnipresent threat of patent reform that could make it even more difficult to enforce the patent property right, and no clear path to a philosophical or ideological turning point make for little to celebrate this World IP Day in America… If Congress wants to resurrect the U.S. patent system these three decisions would be overturned. As long as these decisions remain in force the U.S. patent system will continue to suffer and will undoubtedly be looking up in the rankings to the likes of Hungary when the Chamber releases its 2018 world IP rankings.

Activist Supreme Court decisions in the last decade have been principally responsible for these changes, stimulated by aggressive technology company incumbent lobbying. The combination of these decisions has had a far greater effect on the patent system and the economy than the Court originally intended. The U.S. is now in a compulsory licensing regime in which large technology incumbents that control at least 80% of collective market share employ an “efficient infringement” model of ignoring patents and forcing patent holders to enforce patent rights in the courts.

When the America Invents Act (AIA) was being formulated, from about 2005 – 2011, nothing was more subject to change bill-to-bill than the proposed “1st look” and “2nd look” procedures for issued US patents. Should the U.S. have a regular opposition procedure, or should existing inter partes reexam just be tweaked? The AIA final result is the universally dis-liked post grant troika known as PGR, IPR, and CBM… For today I will confine my remarks (and associated fixes) to three truly bad ideas that in practice have played out as particularly egregious. More specifically: (1) the lack of standing required for inter partes review (IPR) challenges; (2) the lack of any real ability to amend claims during a post grant proceeding; and (3) the trivially low threshold (i.e., reasonable likelihood) that initiates an IPR.

The way Lee talks about the PTAB makes me wonder whether she is referring to the same entity that I commonly refer to as the PTAB. Indeed, Lee’s remarks come across as if leprechauns are dancing across a magical rainbow in search of unicorns being ridden by fairies. It is a fiction that I am just not familiar with; a fiction that patent owners simply do not recognize to be true… To then say that innovation isn’t served if patents are only issued after many years of examination reeks of being hopelessly out of touch. In certain areas of the Patent Office it is not at all unusual for applicants to be awarded 10 years of additional patent term; term that is awarded as the result of Patent Office delay. Getting any patent takes years, getting a worthwhile patent in a commercially viable market segment takes many years, if not a decade or longer. NEWSFLASH: Innovation is already not being served because many innovators do not obtain a patent for extraordinary and unreasonable lengths of time. It is almost as if patent examiners fight a war of attrition against applicants, who are treated like the enemy.

Both petitioners’ and patent owners’ reliance on blog articles in the course of post grant proceedings has been approximately equal. However, the manner in which the blog articles were used did vary widely based on the litigator’s position during the proceeding. For petitioners, blog articles were most often cited to construe the claims (Apotex Inc. v. Amgen Inc., IPR2016-01542, Paper 2, p.69), were introduced as previous publications of an expert witness in order to help prove their qualifications (Samsung Electronics Co., v. Papst Licensing, IPR2016-01733, Ex. 1014, p. 99), or were used to bolster the credentials of one or more of the representing attorneys (Google, Inc. et al v. Smartflash, CBM2015-00132, Paper 17, p. 2). For patent owners, blog articles were most often referenced to provide support to summarize and clarify certain legal standards such as claim construction standards (Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., IPR2015-01615, Paper 12, p. 8), to clarify legislative history and identify Congressional intent (Coalition for Affordable Drugs VII v. Pozen, IPR2015-01241, Paper 13, p. 47), and to rebut the petitioner’s expert testimony by attacking the expert’s credibility (Coalition for Affordable Drugs VII v. Pharmacyclics, IPR2015-01076, Paper 20, p. 13).