IPWatchdog.com is in the process of transitioning to a newer version of our website. Please be patient with us while we work out all the kinks.

Posts Tagged: "post grant procedures"

Patent Filings Roundup: New Litigation-Funded Campaign; PTAB Denies Under NHK-Fintiv Despite Sotera(ish) Stipulation

Apologies for missing last week, which was a light, short holiday recap—nothing much of note beyond less-than-average filings, given the holidays. This week was back to the new normal at the Board, with 24 petitions—one post grant review (PGR) and 23 inter partes reviews (IPRs)—and 50 new filings, with fewer than usual file-and-settle suits (as it’s the beginning of a quarter, year, and month). Another unusually high 92 terminations are mostly due to the end of file-and-settle suits from last year. A few new campaigns of note below, more discretionary denials, and a bunch of IPR denials filed against a German microbattery company round out the week.

Unified Report: Reexaminations Double; Samsung, Apple and Google Dominate PTAB Filings

Reexaminations continue to gain favor, seeing a 47% increase over last year; the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) sees fewer filings; and filings by non-practicing entities (NPEs) rose by 4%, according to Unified Patents’ 2021 Patent Dispute Report: Year in Review, published earlier this week. The PTAB saw a nearly 12% decline in filings from the previous year, whereas district court proceedings remained unchanged, said the report. It added: “Operating companies filed 5.5% less cases in district court and over 10% less filings at the PTAB.”

Patent Trial and Appeal Board Year in Review: The Top Five PTAB Developments of 2021

Noteworthy 2021 developments at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) were primarily driven by oversight—via the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director, Supreme Court and Federal Circuit—rather than by new rules or policy of the agency. After the highly anticipated Arthrex decision fizzled at the Supreme Court, the most significant 2021 development may be former Director Iancu’s departure and legacy of decidedly pro-patent owner policies. That legacy is increasingly under attack. From the Biden administration’s nomination of a new director, to legislative proposals, to Congressional pushback on Section 314(a) discretionary denials of institution (especially as they relate to the Western District of Texas), to lawsuits challenging the practice as an Administrative Procedures Act violation, change is afoot. The coming year is sure to see recalibration of current PTAB practices.

Patent Filings Roundup: Joao Entity Sues Nonprofits, Pediatricians; Fortress Entity Sues LG on TVs in ED Tex; Vector Capital-funded Semi Campaign Runs into the PTAB

As we finish up the year, the high district court termination rate continues; 85 terminations this week, including a fair amount of transfers, rounded out a normal PTAB week (29 filed) and a slightly depressed litigation week (with 50 new complaints). 

In Written Responses to Senators’ Questions, Vidal Supports Iancu’s 101 Guidance ‘In Principle’

In written answers to Senators’ questions for the record submitted today by Kathi Vidal, President Joe Biden’s nominee for the next U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director, Vidal said that she “support[s] the principle of” former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu’s Patent Eligibility Guidance for examiners, but stopped short of wholly endorsing the present guidance or committing to keeping it in place. Instead, Vidal said she would review the guidance in light of intervening case law and comments on the USPTO’s study on the state of patent eligibility jurisprudence to determine if updates are needed.   

The USPTO Must Allow Director’s Review of PTAB Decisions on Institution of AIA Trials

Since the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021), there has been much discussion about the Court’s ruling mandating an option for users to request that the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) review Final Written Decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rendered in trials under the America Invents Act (AIA) on the validity of issued patents. But there has been little or no discussion on such Director’s review of PTAB decisions on institution of AIA trials.

Patent Filings Roundup: Cal Tech Sues Samsung After $1 Billion Apple Verdict; Joao Entity Sues UT’s Health System; Intel Loses Six Against Bill Chu’s Acqis LLC

Another 82 district court terminations this week was again high, though careful analysis has revealed that many of those cases were terminated voluntarily and refiled elsewhere. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw just 22 inter partes reviews (IPRs) this week; a few parties walked away from their patents, including Litl LLC [TRI Ventures, Inc.], after a challenge by Microsoft. District court was up this week to 94 patent filings, and the year looks poised to end with filings up substantially over years past. The Board again exercised its Fintiv muscles in an IPR with a case pending in the International Trade Commission (ITC), this one an entity funded by Techquity Captial Management. Other semiconductor patents asserted by NPEs went down on Final Written Decision in IPR, including one of the patents asserted by Vector Capital’s Monterey Research; it’s worth noting that the semiconductor companies have collectively spent a lot of time before the Board this year after the increase in NPE suits there this year.

Cellspin Soft Challenges Denials of USPTO Director Review Under Arthrex and APA

Last week, patent owner Cellspin Soft filed a citation of supplemental authorities  with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) asking the appellate court to either vacate or reverse an order from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denying Director review following a pair of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings conducted at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Cellspin Soft is challenging the USPTO’s denial as invalid both under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), as well as under the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedent in United States v. Arthrex (2021). Cellspin had filed requests seeking Director review of a pair of final written decisions invalidating all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9258698, Automatic Media Upload for Publishing Data and Multimedia Content. It claims a machine-implemented method of media transfer utilizing a digital data capture device and a Bluetooth-enabled mobile device for publishing multimedia content automatically onto a website with minimal user intervention. Issued to Cellspin Soft in February 2016, the ‘698 patent has been asserted in infringement suits filed in U.S. district courts against several defendants including Panasonic, GoPro, Garmin, Nikon, Canon and Eastman Kodak.

CAFC Upholds PTAB Ruling for Corcept, Finding Teva Failed to Show a Reasonable Expectation of Success

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a precedential decision yesterday affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that Teva Pharmaceuticals had failed to prove Corcept Therapuetics’ U.S. Patent No. 10,195,214 would have been obvious. The patent covers methods of treating Cushing’s syndrome, a disease caused by excessive levels of the naturally occurring steroid hormone, cortisol. Chief Judge Moore authored the opinion.

Patent Filings Roundup: Board Reverses Own Fintiv Denial; Joao Entity’s Bad Bet; NPE Adopts Anticounterfeiting Tactics

With the Thanksgiving holiday, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) (18) filings were down, but district court patent filings held steady at 62, with (again) an astounding number of closed or terminated cases (almost 100), many voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. As reported last week, in Google LLC v. EcoFactor, Inc. IPR, IPR2021-00982, the Board originally denied the petition, citing Fintiv and the statutory timing of International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations. Subsequently, though, the Board was made aware that the patent had been dropped from the ITC case, and reversed its earlier discretionary denial, thus instituting the case. It’s the first time I’m aware of that the Board has reversed a denial of institution, not on request for rehearing, but sua sponte after the discretionary reasons for denial evaporated (as they often do).

Patent Filings Roundup: Judge Albright Hits Back at Federal Circuit; APJ Urges Board to Consider Litigiousness Under Fintiv; PTAB Reverses Fintiv Denial after ITC Termination

District court patent filings this week remained slightly elevated, at 78, with a fair number of Rothschild, Raymond Anthony Joao, and Jeffrey Gross entities filings complaints; but oddly—after their explosion of new litigations the past two weeks—there was not a single IP Edge case to speak of. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), for its part, was up slightly too, with 37 new petitions (one post grant review and 36 inter partes reviews). Speaking of Jeffrey Gross, though it consists of two patents issued in 2013, the Jeffrey Gross-run Auth Token LLC appears to have waited until the sunset of covered business method (CBM) petitions to turn around and slap virtually all of the nation’s banks, credit card companies, and some financiers with a lawsuit over two pretty identical point-of-sale authentication patents. The cases now include Mastercard, Visa, M&T Bank, PNC Bank, Regions Bank, TD Bank, Trust Financial, and US Bancorp (US Bank), among the 32 defendants thus far.  But the real action was between the Federal Circuit and Judge Albright, as the words and rulings of each become increasingly confrontational toward the other.

B.E. Technology Dubs IPR Process a ‘Kafkaesque Nightmare’ in Mandamus Petition to CAFC

B.E. Technology, a company owned by Martin David Hoyle, developer of internet advertising technology who has been embroiled in litigation with big tech companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google for close to a decade now, today filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). The petition asks the court to intervene to “prevent an unconstitutional deprivation of B.E.’s property rights in the onslaught of IPR proceedings that have been brought to challenge the validity of its most critical patents.” B.E. specifically asks the CAFC to direct the Patent Trial and Appeal Board  (PTAB) to vacate its decisions to grant institution in four separate inter partes review (IPR) proceedings: Twitter, Inc. and Google LLC v. B.E. Technology, L.L.C., Nos. IPR2021-00482, IPR2021-00483, IPR2021-00484, and IPR2021-00485. The question presented is: “Whether a writ of mandamus should issue to prevent an unconstitutional deprivation of the Petitioner patent owner’s property rights without due process of law?”

Federal Circuit Again Dismisses Apple Appeal of PTAB Rulings for Qualcomm; Newman Dissents

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today dismissed Apple, Inc.’s appeal of four decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in favor of Qualcomm. The CAFC found that an April 2021 CAFC decision (Apple I) on related PTAB rulings, in which the court found Apple lacked Article III standing, controlled. The opinion for the court was authored by Judge Prost. Judge Pauline Newman dissented. In part, the court in Apple I held that a global settlement between Apple and Qualcomm on the terms of a license agreement meant that “the validity of any single patent would have no effect on Apple’s ongoing payment obligations,” and that Apple had therefore failed to establish standing under the reasoning of MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, as it asserted. The court in Apple I explained: “Ultimately, Apple’s assertions amount to little more than an expression of its displeasure with a license provision into which it voluntarily entered. Such allegations do not establish Article III standing.”

Patent Filings Roundup: In a Slow Week, IP Edge Hits Amazon on Cryptographic Keys and Jeffrey Gross-Run Entities Proliferate

Another week, another dearth of any Fintiv denials, which sort of begs the question, if the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has effectively walked back their reliance on the Fintiv factors, does that order’s precedential status merit walking back? In terms of district court and PTAB filings, subdued is the word; just 19 PTAB petitions (all inter partes reviews) with four being apparent joinders by LG Electronics against Gesture Technology Partners, LLC [a Tim Pryor entity] well prior to institution, seeking to join Apple petitions. Previous Pryor entities include Motion Games LLC, PSTP Ttechnologies, Tactile Feedback Technology, LMI Technologies Inc., and Great Lakes Intellectual Property, Ltd]. Gil Hyatt filed yet another suit this week (and has filed one a week, it seems, for some time).

Massie Introduces Bill to Repeal PTAB, Abrogate Alice

Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) on November 5 introduced a bill, titled the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2021 (RALIA), HR 5874, that would repeal the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), return the patent system to a “first-to-invent” model, rather than first-to-file, and would end automatic publication of patents. Inventor groups such as US Inventor and conservative groups are supporting the legislation.