Posts Tagged: "PTAB"

Practitioners dealing with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation should be sure to preserve objections for appeal, since failing to object may lead to a more deferential, plain error standard of review, depending on the applicable circuit law. Further, in seeking a preliminary injunction, evidence of harm from pre-issuance of the asserted patent is relevant to show likelihood of irreparable harm from similar injuries in the future.

In the piece, Lee tries her best to assure readers that positive developments have been made at the USPTO in recent years, but at multiple points she seems blind to major issues that have plagued U.S. patent system stakeholders during her tenure… Perhaps the most abrasive thing Lee stated in her editorial was this: “Our stakeholders share my belief, and that of my USPTO colleagues, that there is a cost to society when this agency issues a patent that should not issue…” No, Ms. Lee, a great many stakeholders do NOT share your belief. They don’t share your belief primarily because by making this statement you shine light on a largely fictitious problem while simultaneously ignoring the real problem facing the Office, which is that patent examiners refuse to issue any patents at all on good, high quality innovations that deserve patent protection.

Recently the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denied institution in two separate inter partes review (IPR) challenges. Both IPR petitions were filed by Blue Coat Systems, LLC, against Finjan, Inc. In both instances the Board found that the Blue Coat IPR petitions were harassing and denied institution… These two decisions could mark a turning point in the maturation of the Board. At least several patent owners, including Finjan, are routinely subject to serial, harassing IPR challenges. The Patent Office doing something about harassing IPR challenges is long overdue.

In many of the decisions, the examiners and appellants had an opportunity to make arguments based on Alice before the PTAB reached a decision. Yet, the outlook has become only more grim for appellants who are hoping that the PTAB will overturn a § 101 rejection. As indicated above, the reversal rate for a § 101 rejection in December 2016 based on Alice was less than 9%. Equally worrying for potential appellants is that some decisions introduced a § 101 rejection even when prior art rejections were reversed. The PTAB seems to have stopped the practice of urging examiners to review the claims for compliance under § 101 in light of Alice, and, instead, has become more active in introducing § 101 rejections on their own.

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.

The Federal Circuit, while deciding a preliminary injunction was properly granted, addressed the PTAB decision in its oral arguments and in its decision. In oral arguments Judge Moore stated, “You have to be able to say substantially, ‘cause there’s a million patents that use the word substantially.” And in their written decision the Federal Circuit explained: “We find it difficult to believe that a person with an associate’s degree in a science or engineering discipline who had read the specification and relevant prosecution history would be unable to determine with reasonable certainty when a water balloon is “substantially filled.”

The American patent system represents a delicate balance. On the one hand, the patent system provides an incentive to invest in risky technical problem solving by giving an inventor an “exclusive right” for a limited time. On the other hand, from the time of the first Patent Act in 1790, patent critics have argued that patents block competition with a temporary monopoly. This tension has, nevertheless, enabled the rise of the U.S. as a major industrial economy, particularly after the Civil War. Optimally, the patent system encourages inventors to take risks to invent and disclose new and useful things by investing in ex ante costs before a later payoff. After a limited time of exclusivity rights, a patented invention falls into the public sphere, thereby providing a public interest in the long run. Economic and technological progress proceeds by building on previous inventions. Until about 2006, the U.S. patent system worked well, as evident in the development of the largest and strongest economy in the world.

The patent owner made a successful argument regarding secondary considerations, specifically relating to the success of the bottle cap in the country of Peru, which led in large part to PTAB upholding the validity of the ‘271 patent. A 7 percent increase in market share in that country during a five-year period after the new cap product was released to the Peruvian market led PTAB to find that the market share increase was attributable to the merits of the new product. The petitioner had argued that the use of Peruvian economic data was dismissable evidence but PTAB found that the evidence to support the petitioner’s view was lacking.

When addressing the issue of generality vs. particularity, we come across a situation where the inventors described the most crucial aspect of the invention, the classification unit, in general terms in the claim. Consequently, in the PTAB’s assessment, the representative claim did not rise above the threshold test of patentability under section 101. But much of what the PTAB seems concerned about relates to disclosure and there is nothing in the PTAB panel decision in Itagaki to suggest that the PTAB reviewed the specification to determine whether the somewhat generally described terms were given particularized meaning by the applicant. It also raises questions about how the PTAB could have properly conducted an obviousness review if the classification unit was so abstract as to be infirm from a patent eligibility point of view.

For the year patent infringement cases dropped by 22 percent from the previous year, from 5,823 cases in 2015 down to 4,520 cases in 2016. 2016 actually saw the lowest number of patent infringement lawsuits filed since 2011, when 3,578 cases were filed. There was no month during 2016 where more than 460 patent suits were filed; both 2014 and 2015 had at least one month where more than 650 patent suits were filed in district court.

The Board’s determination was “potentially lawful but insufficiently or inappropriately explained.” The finding of obviousness was vacated and the case was remanded for further proceedings… Obviousness findings grounded in common sense must contain explicit and clear reasoning that provides some rational underpinning as to why common sense compels such a result.

After several articles and webinars discussing appeals outcomes at the USPTO, we have received numerous requests for Pre-Appeal Brief Conference data to explain how advantageous the program really is for applicants. Using the vast data resources of our system and Public PAIR, we studied all appeals from January 1, 2006 (six months after the program was instituted), to the present day, including pending PBC cases. For the purposes of this article, we were chiefly concerned with the overall effect that a PBC had on the outcome of an appeal. As such, we have indicated that a PBC ended with a “decision for applicant” when the application was either allowed or prosecution was reopened following a PBC decision, regardless of whether the decision was due to the PBC decision itself or a subsequent pre-appeal brief office action. What we found was that, while few PBCs result in an allowance from the PBC decision itself, they have a net positive effect on an application’s overall appeals success. An explanation of our findings follows.

While Congress seems to pass some form of patent legislation roughly every 9 to 11 years, the more important changes with regard to business predictability and economic growth tend to come from specific Court decisions. Just look at what Alice has done to ruin software patents with uncertainty, and now with the PTAB actually finding that an MRI machine is an unpatentable abstract idea. Worse it has placed the US behind Europe and even China in terms of protecting computer implemented inventions… Courts can make patents great again in America. And if not they will at least be as active as they have been in the past 10 years in terms of shaping the patent dialogue.

While Congress does seem to pass some form of patent legislation roughly every 9 to 11 years, the more important changes with regard to business predictability and economic growth tend to come from specific Court decisions. Just look at what Alice has done to ruin software patents with uncertainty, and now with the PTAB actually finding that an MRI machine is an unpatentable abstract idea. Worse it has placed the US behind Europe and even China in terms of protecting computer implemented inventions.

In a Per Curiam Order the Federal Circuit granted the petition for en banc rehearing and vacated the court’s three prior opinions in Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom Corp. The Federal Circuit will consider whether IPR institution decisions are reviewable in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee.

Pedersen doesn’t disagree that the patent system is biased against the patent owner in that “the patent owner has to run the gauntlet,” referring to needing to prevail in every forum 100% of the time. That means prevailing by convincing a patent examiner a patent should be awarded in the first place, prevailing against any post grant challenges, prevailing at the ITC and in the district court, and ultimately prevailing at the Federal Circuit. Pedersen acknowledged that with the system we have as a whole even if at ever step of the way there is a 90% chance that the patentee would win by the time you calculate the percent of “running the gauntlet” with the patent unscathed you are down to 50-50 at best.