Greg Gardella Patent Reexamination: Effective Strategy for Litigating Infringement Claims Best...
-
Upload
garry-scott -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
1
Transcript of Greg Gardella Patent Reexamination: Effective Strategy for Litigating Infringement Claims Best...
Greg Gardella
Patent Reexamination: Effective Strategy for Litigating Infringement Claims
Best Practices for Pursuing and Defending Parallel Proceedings
2
Interplay Between Reexam and Litigation
• When to File Reexam?• Race to Judgment• Admissions• Collateral Estoppel
3
When to File Reexam: Before the Lawsuit
• In conjunction with declaratory judgment action?
• Provides a strong argument for the court to grant a stay if litigation is later filed
• Less costly to contest patent via reexam versus litigation
• Can cast later suit as retaliatory• Caveat: might provoke a lawsuit
4
• To maximize the chance of stay of litigation– Status of discovery and trial schedule often a key
factor in decision to stay litigation• To minimize the chance of preliminary
injunction/TRO• The first OA or ACP is likely to issue before
trial
When to File Reexam: Beginning of Lawsuit
5
• Reexam request may be easier to prepare after arguments are developed and prior art is searched during litigation
• The grant of a reexam may influence the trier of fact
• A pending reexam may be influential in post-trial proceedings, including permanent injunction motion
When to File Reexam: Later in the Lawsuit
6
• After the lawsuit– May serve to terminate injunction, royalty obligation
• Multiple, staggered ex parte reexams– Each new reexam request can attempt to address
alleged shortcomings of prior art considered in prior reexam
– Tightening standards at the Central Reexamination Unit– Merger of co-pending reexaminations
When to File Reexam: After Lawsuit; Multiple, Staggered Requests
7
Delay in Filing Reexam Requests May Have Consequences
• Denial of relief from judgment on basis of disclaimer by plaintiff during reexamination of patent filed by defendant
• Defendant delayed in filing reexam request, waited till after trial to file reexam request– “Microsoft was not faultless in the delay [in filing
reexamination petition] and justice does not require overturning a jury verdict at this late stage based on statements made to the PTO.” Amado v. Microsoft517 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
8
Interplay Between Reexam and Litigation
• When to File Reexam• Race to Judgment• Admissions• Collateral Estoppel
9
“A party can choose to run horses in both races, but the conclusion of one race automatically ends the other; a
party cannot ride both horses to conclusion.”
Sony v. Jon W. Dudas, No. 1:05CV1447, 2006 WL 1472462, at *6 (E.D. Va. May 22, 2006)
Horse Race?
10
In re TranslogicDATE LITIGATION REEXAM
March 1999 Patentee sues
June 1999 – Sept. 2002
Accused infringer files multiple reexam requests
Oct. 2003 Jury upholds patent validity
March 2004 PTO rejects claims
May 2005 Jury finds $86.5 million in damages
July 2005 BPAI affirms rejections
December 2005 District Court enters judgment
11
In re Translogic: Federal Circuit• Jury verdict nullified by reexamination:
– Fed. Cir. affirms rejection in reexamination, holding patent claims as obvious (504 F.3d 1249)
– Same day, the Fed. Cir. “vacates the district court's decision and remands this case to the district court for dismissal.” (250 Fed. Appx. 988)
• What if reexam decision occur after? May work to overturn permanent injunction. See, e.g., FRCP 60(b)(5)
12
Interplay Between Reexam and Litigation
• When to File Reexam• Race to Judgment• Admissions• Collateral Estoppel
13
“Admission” by Patent Owner
Examiner may rely on admissions
Non-Final Holding of Invalidity or Validity
“Not controlling” in reexam
“Fact” determined in reexamination
Requester may be estopped from challenging fact in
litigation
Actions During Proceedings
Litigation Inter Partes Reexamination
Interplay Among Proceedings – A Lot Can Happen
Non-final rejectionPersuasive authority for
invalidity
Ongoing prosecution history: Patentee argues distinction over prior art
May impact claim interpretation or provide
basis for non-infringement position
Claim amendmentsMay limit damages or create
intervening rights
14
Final Holdings
Litigation Inter Partes Reexamination
Interplay Among Proceedings – A Lot Can Happen
InvalidReexam is vacated
(as moot)
“Valid”Reexam is vacated if the requester was a litigant
Requester estopped from asserting invalidity in litigation
based on reexam prior art
Case dismissed
Final decision holding patent:
Final decision holding patent:
Invalid
“Valid”
A decision is “final” only after all appeals.
15
Interplay Between Reexam and Litigation
• When to File Reexam• Race to Judgment• Admissions• Collateral Estoppel
16
Estoppel In Ex Parte Reexam: Via Court Order
• Some orders staying litigation are expressly conditioned on an estoppel provision: – “[S]tay would be granted only on the condition
that each Defendant agree not to challenge the ‘961 patent based on any prior art printed publications that were considered during the reexamination process.” Antor Media Corp. v. Nokia, 2:05CV186 (E.D. Tex., Oct. 23, 2006) (J. Folsom)
17
“Practical” Collateral Estoppel
• When patent survives reexamination the trier of fact is likely to indulge a strong presumption that the patent is in fact valid
• This bias can apply even when defenses could not have been raised during reexamination– Offers for sale– Prior invention
Greg Gardella
Patent Reexamination: Effective Strategy for Litigating Infringement Claims
Best Practices for Pursuing and Defending Parallel Proceedings