Posts Tagged: "post grant review"

The recurring theme will be decreased fees for those who qualify for micro-entity status, but increased fees for everyone else. That is great, but micro-entity status will not even apply to all independent inventors, but only a subset of independent inventors who are at the lowest end of the income scale and who have had very few patents or patent applications. Thus, even the professional garage inventor will be a small entity and will pay more — in some cases substantially more — than they pay now. Not to mention the small businesses that are the engine of the U.S. economy. These fees will be a real and substantial impediment to the patent process for those individuals and businesses that we need to be encouraging and incentivizing the most.

Post Grant Review, Inter Partes Review and the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents were instituted with the goal of improving patent quality by giving third parties methods to challenge patents that are less expensive and less involved than litigation. Each of these procedures is a trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) composed of Administrative Patent Judges and subject to Part 42 of 37 C.F.R., Trial Practice Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The trials allow for limited discovery, which has not been available in Ex Parte or Inter Partes Reexamination, the existing procedures for challenging patents in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Because the discovery is limited, it is unlikely that these procedures will be used in cases where large amounts of evidence may be needed to prove patent invalidity.

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced today that it will publish final rules in the Federal Register on August 14, 2012, to implement three administrative trial provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA); inter partes review, post-grant review, and the transitional program for covered business method patents. The administrative trial final rules offer a third party a timely, cost-effective alternative to district court litigation for challenging the patentability of a claimed invention in an issued patent. These rules become effective on September 16, 2012. With this publication, all of the administrative trial rules the USPTO was tasked by the AIA to complete will have been published.

The troubling news starts with the fact that a technical amendments bill to the America Invents Act (AIA) that is working its way around Capitol Hill, and in true government by ambush fashion it could work its way into a bill at any time! What is the big deal about technical amendments? The problem is that not all of the amendments will be “technical.” For example, there is a plot afoot to change the estoppel provisions in the AIA relative to post-grant review and inter partes review. In my opinion there would have been absolutely no chance that the America Invents Act would have passed if the estoppel provisions for post-grant review only applied to issues actually raised.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has proposed a consolidated set of rules related to trial practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The proposed rules implement the provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act relating to inter partes review, post-grant review, the transitional program for covered business method patents, and derivation proceedings.

Notwithstanding the inherent unreliability of legislative history and the truly scary prospect of trying to get inside the head of Members of Congress, it seems fairly clear to me that the America Invents Act, which was signed into law by President Obama on September 16, 2012, contains at least a handful of things that can only be characterized as unintended consequences. Among them are: (1) U.S. patents issued from foreign filings will be prior art as of the foreign filing date; (2) commonly owned patent applications cannot be used against each other for novelty purposes; and (3) the creation of an post grant challenge limbo because of the delay in initiating post-grant review procedures.

I have done quite a bit of writing about the America Invents Act, but I have been a bit derelict in providing the sequel to America Invents: A Simple Guide to Patent Reform, Part 1. Part of the reason, if not the entirety of the reason, is that the major parts of the American Invents Act that remain are anything but simple. On this note I embark upon Part 2, which will seek to make sense of prior user rights, post-grant review, preissuance submission and patentability changes. This will leave inter partes review, supplemental examination and derivation proceedings for the finale — Part 3.

The America Invents Act, which just recently passed by the Congress and sent to the White House for President Obama’s signature, is the most significant patent reform legislation in decades, and it promises to change virtually all of patent practice as we know it over the next 18 months. Some pieces of the legislation will go into effect almost immediately,…

Why would we expect a new post-issuance review to work any better than the current prosecution process? Why are we to expect the Patent Office, which is certainly not equipped to handle litigation-like proceedings, could adequately and appropriately resolve issues of patentability in a post grant review proceeding when they are so horribly under-funded? Why would anyone think this is a good idea? Simply stated, the America Invents Act layers on more and more responsibility for the USPTO but without any additional funding. For years the federal government has been notoriously adept at layering unfunded mandates onto the States, but with this legislation they will layer unfunded mandates onto the USPTO; an agency that accepts absolutely no taxpayer funding.

The real sin is that reexamination could be a much better process. Those in Congress talk about alleviating the burden on the district courts by having a reexamination proceeding available, but they don’t seem to appreciate why it is that reexamination is under utilized. On top of that, patent reform circulating in Congress does absolutely nothing to revamp reexamination in a way that would streamline the process and make it more appealing. What patent reform does do, however, is add yet another procedure to bog down the Patent Office while not allowing the Patent Office to set fees and keep those fees they collect to do the work that is promised when they accept those fees. So if patent reform passes you can anticipate that the reexamination pendency numbers will get even more ugly, making the option even less appealing.

The vast number of America’s companies that need patents to prosper and grow should fear the post-grant provisions for challenging patents in H.R. 1249, the patent reform bill passed last month by the House of Representatives. In a system already plagued by delays in granting patents, they threaten to delay courts from enforcing patents once finally granted. This threat has received little attention, perhaps because advocates of the bill promise promptness that they cannot deliver.

The Innovation Alliance is disappointed that the America Invents Act as introduced today in the House of Representatives does not include some important safeguards against the potential for abuse of the post-grant review procedures at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In particular, the bill includes a weak threshold for ‘second window’ inter partes review proceedings, one that will allow virtually all challenges to proceed to a trial-like hearing before an administrative patent judge. We believe a higher threshold is needed to enable the USPTO to manage the increased workload of the new administrative review system fairly and efficiently by screening out meritless or unsubstantiated petitions.

Late in the afternoon on Thursday, March 24, 2011, the purported patent reform bill from the House of Representatives began circulating. The House patent reform bill is largely identical to the Senate version – S. 23. There are some differences, one rather major difference, but the Senate first to file provisions remain intact. The House bill would still grant the Patent Office the right to use all of the funds collected, as did S. 23. The House bill also would grant the United States Patent and Trademark Office fee setting authority, as did S. 23, but then curiously goes on to set the fees that the USPTO charges. It seems unclear why on one hand you would set the fees and in another section of the bill say that the USPTO can vary any fees defined.

Director Kappos is making his case for patent reform by making 4 key points. First, patent reform would lower patent office fees for independent inventors and presumably small businesses by establishing a new class — micro entities. Second, the fee setting authority in the patent reform legislation will allow for the USPTO to generate more revenue, thereby improving IT systems and hiring more patent examiners, while not costing micro entities more in the way of fees. Third, post grant review of patents will be condensed into a 12 month period and the threshold for initiating review will be raised, which should result in at settling effect not unlike the quieting of title in the real property scenario. Finally, the US will not become a pure first to file system, but rather into a first inventor to file system, which will have little or no effect on independent inventors and small businesses.

Reissue practice and reissue oaths are plagued by the tortured language of 35 U.S.C. § 251.  Having suffered through 3 related reissues myself, I’ve often referred to this language in 35 U.S.C. § 251 as being something “other than English.”  An expanded panel of the Patent Office Board of Appeals and Interferences (Board) in Ex parte Tanaka had to decide…