Posts Tagged: "post grant procedures"

In two separate precedential decisions authored by Chief Judge Moore today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) delivered victory for Teleflex Innovations, S.À.R.L. when it upheld Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rulings that found Medtronic, Inc. had failed to prove Teleflex’s patent claims for catheter technology used in interventional cardiology procedures unpatentable. The court issued a related decision last month, authored by Judge Lourie, also finding for Teleflex. Chief Judge Moore joined Lourie’s opinion, while Judge Dyk dissented.

One of the most intriguing, and frankly long overdue, reforms the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) needs to consider is putting an end to the practice of for-profit entities like Unified Patents and RPX filing petitions challenging a patent. This practice has recently been called into question by the USPTO through an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) published in the Federal Register. The ANPRM, among many other things, raises the question whether the Office should discretionarily deny post grant proceedings filed by for-profit, non-competitive entities that in essence seek to shield actual real-parties-in-interest (RPIs) and privies from the statutory estoppel provisions contained within the America Invents Act (AIA). And two recent decisions from the Office of Patent Legal Administration (OPLA) provide even more hope that the USPTO will take a reasonable approach going forward when it comes to RPIs.

The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) issued a decision on May 5 granting Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Administrative Patent Judge (APJ) Michael Fitzpatrick’s request for corrective action with respect to alleged retaliatory personnel actions against him by senior management officials at the Department of Commerce and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The 131-page decision said that Fitzpatrick filed the appeal to the MSPB in 2021, following punishment for “protected whistleblowing activity.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge (APJ) Michael Tierney of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and Lead APJ Amber Hagy presented a webinar Tuesday on the Office’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on PTAB practices, walking attendees through some of the key proposals, and repeatedly reassuring stakeholders that the ANPRM does not contain any proposed rules. The widespread confusion about the ANPRM was highlighted during Vidal’s recent oversight hearing by the House IP Subcommittee.

It was another low patent-filing week at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), with just 12 new petitions (about half of last year’s average); district court filings were average with 47 new filings. Acacia subsidiary Atlas Global received more petitions on patents that are part of its broad assertion campaign; some Centripetal patents were instituted by a defendant in that going campaign; Intellectual Ventures appears to have settled the latest round of automotive litigation before Judge Albright, ending that case; and IP Edge continues to not file new cases and settle old ones, in the wake of the end of the year discovery battles. Zillow was instituted on patents IBM had asserted or threatened; and the Vidal administration is the latest recipient of yet another Gil Hyatt suit.

Given the various ways the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) can exercise discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review (IPR) petition (and the corresponding non?appealability of those decisions), ex parte reexamination is becoming an attractive option to challenge patent validity following a decision not to institute. Because a later filed ex parte reexamination is often viewed as a “second bite at the apple,” there were questions as to how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) should treat these second attempts at invalidating a patent. For IPRs, the PTAB has used several bases for discretionary denial of a later-filed IPR, but those bases were not being applied to follow-on ex parte reexamination requests. However, in In re Vivint, the Federal Circuit held that the USPTO has the authority to discretionarily deny an ex parte reexamination request under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), i.e., if “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.”

On Wednesday, April 4, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied VLSI’s motion to terminate Intel’s involvement in an inter partes review (IPR) of VLSI’s U.S. Patent No. 7,725,759. In addition to Intel, OpenSky is also a petitioner in the IPR, which pertains to claims 1, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 24 of the ‘759 patent. VLSI argued that a previous March 2021 district court ruling that found Intel had not proven invalidity of claims 14, 17, 18, and 24 of the patent precluded the tech firm from continuing to pursue this IPR. However, Intel successfully made the case that claim preclusion does not apply thanks to the America Invents Act (AIA). Additionally, it argued that the IPR and district court proceedings do not involve the same accused product and have different standards of proof.

Last week, cyber threat intelligence firm Centripetal Networks filed a petition  with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit seeking mandamus relief from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) “extraordinary departure from basic elements of due process” during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings challenging Centripetal’s patent claims. If left unremedied, Centripetal argues to the Federal Circuit that its own treatment at the hands of the PTAB “sen[ds] a message to the entire patent bar: Any attempt to hold APJs to standards comparable to those of Article III judges [will] be met with sanctions.”

There was a slight uptick in district court filings last week after a slow January and February, with 43 new patent filings, including a design patent battle involving tumblers and multiple filings indicating an association with high-volume plaintiffs such as Jeffrey Gross and Leigh Rothschild. It was a busy week at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), with over 32 new challenges last week, with only one procedural denial on an institution decision—but that was not based on discretionary denial, which remains often briefed but rarely successful for the time being. Of course, the big news this week was that the Federal Circuit has revived an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenge to the Fintiv decision on discretionary denial itself as arbitrary agency action that skirted proper procedure and had an outsized impact on a broad swath of cases.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled on March 1 that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) erred in its analysis of an inter partes review (IPR) filed by streaming giants Netflix and Hulu. The CAFC vacated and remanded the case, ordering the PTAB to once again review the patent dispute filed against DivX. “Because the Board legally erred in its obviousness analysis, and the error cannot be regarded as harmless, we vacate and remand,” wrote the CAFC judges in their ruling. Netflix and Hulu petitioned the PTAB to carry out an IPR in February 2020 of DivX’s U.S. Patent No. 10,225,588. The petition claimed the ‘588 patent was unpatentable due to obviousness.

Patent filings continue to be slightly depressed in the district courts and at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) compared to the highs of last year, with 17 new PTAB cases and 38 new district court filings. New filings consist primarily of a few apparently funded cases—a Fortress entity, for instance, sued Amazon, and a Taiwanese entity with no Internet presence has sued Apple and Samsung on wireless charging patents, with some new Jeff Gross entity filings, a slew of Dynapass filings, and some other banking campaigns picking up steam; at the Board, most of the fillings revolved around existing campaigns Robocast and Daedalus Prime, as detailed below. Ericsson continued with challenging some Phillips patents; and there’s even a funder, Element Capital, who has been hit by inter partes reviews (IPRs) after suing in their own name (via a Singapore subsidiary, against Chinese subsidiaries of other companies, including Motorola).

I attended the hearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Maalouf v. Microsoft on Monday February 6, 2023, and the CAFC issued its opinion in the case this past Thursday. This case has curious origins. Through his company Dareltech, Ramzi Khalil Maalouf, a Lebanese immigrant and U.S. citizen, sued Xiaomi, a Chinese multinational corporation, for patent infringement in New York. The case was dismissed without prejudice because Xiaomi was found not to have a physical presence in New York, notwithstanding their proven secret office.  Later, Microsoft, naming Xiaomi as the real party in interest, filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In other words, a U.S. Big Tech multinational acted on behalf of a China-controlled multinational to invalidate the patents of a small American inventor, thus clearing the way into the U.S. market for the China-controlled multinational.

Patent owners think Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) are a fixed game. Their concern goes beyond structural and procedural aspects of the IPR process; patent owners also believe that Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) judges are hostile to patents. Their concerns are particularly pronounced because their opportunities for appellate review of those PTAB judges’ decisions is limited. This article examines whether this concern is justified.

Does Patent Quality Assurance (PQA) have a relationship with Intel? That is fast becoming the question du jour relating to the saga over the VLSI patents, to which Intel is on the hook for over $2 billion after losing a patent infringement action in district court. The factual predicate for the belief that there may be some relationship between PQA and Intel stems from the filing of an inter partes review (IPR) challenge on the part of PQA against the VLSI patents responsible for the $2 billion verdict against Intel. There has been a question in whispers behind the scenes about whether and to what extent the PQA challenge to the VLSI patents is a subterfuge because Intel could not challenge the patents in an IPR itself.

On Friday, February 10, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal designated as precedential an August 2022 decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denying an inter partes review (IPR) petition due to the “conclusory statements” of the petitioner’s declarant. The PTAB held in IPR2022-00624 that Xerox Corp., et. al. failed to show that there was a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in proving unpatentability of the challenged claims of Bytemark, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 10,360,567 B2. The patent is titled, “Method and System for Distributing Electronic Tickets with Data Integrity Checking.”