The Practical Effects of the New USPTO Post-Grant...
Transcript of The Practical Effects of the New USPTO Post-Grant...
PRESENTATION TITLE
1
America Invents Act: The Practical Effects of the New USPTO
Post-Grant Proceedings
Wab Kadaba
February 8, 2012
2
• Signed by President Obama on Sept. 16, 2011 – Most significant change to US Patent Law in
over 100 years
• New post-grant review procedures – New Chapter 32 Post-Grant Review (§§
321-329) – Chapter 31 Inter Partes Review (§§ 311-319)
*Rules governing procedure to publish any day now.
America Invents Act of 2011
3
Overview
• What has changed? – Timing – Standard of Review – Procedures – Discovery – Estoppel
• What should you do differently?
4
Timing - Availability and Effective Date of Review Proceedings
Post-Grant Review Inter Partes Review
Not later than 9 months after issuance of patent.*
On 9/16/2012, Inter Partes Review will begin to be available if more than 9 months after patent issuance.
*While the effective date for Post-Grant Review is 9/16/2012, AIA §3(n)(1) limits consideration to patents with a priority date on or after 3/16/2013. Thus, with the average time it takes for the PTO to grant a patent, Post-Grant Review will not be implemented until approximately 2015.
5
Standard Of Review
Proceeding Criteria to Initiate
Ex Parte Reexamination
Substantial new question of patentability (SNQP)
Post-Grant Review
More likely than not that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable or novel/unsettled important legal question
Inter Partes Review / Inter Partes Reexam
A reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim
Standard for Request
Ex Parte Reexamination < Post-Grant Review < Inter Partes Review
6
Procedures – Grounds Available for Post-Grant Proceedings
Post-Grant Review Inter Partes Review Patentability challenge = same as in litigation:
Subject matter, utility -§101 Novelty - §102 Nonobviousness - §103 Definiteness, enablement, written description - §112 Double patenting Not best mode
Validity challenges under §102, §103 based on printed prior art publications and based on double patenting
7
Procedures – New (and Trial-Like) For Both PGR and IPR
• Limited Discovery • Oral Hearings • Protective Orders • Amendment
– 1 motion, or later joint motion
• Settlement – Business-confidential
• Appeal by either Party to CAFC
8
Timing
• Goal to improve timing over Inter Partes Reexaminations. – May increase likelihood of litigation stay.
Projected Timing Inter Partes Reexam 5+ years to BPAI decision
Inter Partes Review AIA indicates 12 to 18 months to PTAB decision
10
Discovery
• Post-Grant Review Limited to: – “Evidence directly related to factual assertions advanced by either
party in the proceeding.” – Depositions not expressly identified.
• Inter-Partes Review Limited to: – Depositions of witnesses submitting affidavits or declarations. – What is otherwise necessary in the interest of justice.
• U.S. District Court: (Federal Rules of Evidence) – Any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or
defense. • Includes any documents or other tangible things and the identity
and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. – Depositions of Inventors, Prosecuting Attorneys, Experts, Employees.
11
Checks On Discovery
• Limited in Scope. • Discovery Period Limited to 4 Months. • Sanctions for:
– Harassment – Abuse of Discovery – Improper Purpose – Abuse of Process
• Protective Orders for exchange and submission of confidential information.
12
Estoppel - Inter Partes Review
Parallel Litigation PTO Determines Patent
Valid
Parallel Litigation District Court Holds Patent
Valid
When Estoppel Attaches
Inter Partes Reexam
Estopped from invalidity defense (raised or could have raised in Inter Partes Reexam). • District Court Only
Inter Partes Reexam Vacated -Estopped
Final Decision - Appeals Exhausted
Inter Partes Review
Estopped from invalidity defense (raised or reasonably could have raised) • ITC & District Court
No Estoppel* *Practical Estoppel for Inter Partes Review filed by party more than one year after being sued for patent infringement. §315(b).
(PTAB) Written Decision
13
Estoppel - Post-Grant Review
• Estoppel = “raised or reasonably could have raised” same as Inter Partes Review but since Post-Grant Review has broader basis the estoppel implications are greater for Post-Grant Review.
14
Strategic Tips for Inter Partes and Post-Grant Review - DJ Actions
• For Inter Partes or Post-Grant Review, file DJ action on or after petitioning for review. Then, the DJ action will be automatically stayed until patentee moves to lift stay or counterclaims with infringement claim or petitioner moves for dismissal.
• If DJ action already filed, the same party cannot initiate Inter Partes or Post-Grant Review.
15
Summary of Major Areas of Change
Proceeding Purpose &
Timing Issues & Prior Art
Strategic Considerations
Post-Grant Review
3rd Party challenge of patent within 9 months of issuance
Any ground of invalidity (§§ 101, 102, 103, 112, 251) – not limited to patents or printed publications
Balancing Litigation Defenses with Estoppel Provisions
Inter Partes Review
3rd Party challenge of patent after PGR window or conclusion of PGR*
Limited to novelty, obviousness (§§ 102, 103) – limited to patents and printed publications
Balancing Litigation Defenses with Estoppel Provisions
*Patents not subject to PGR proceedings are available for IPR on 9/16/2012.
16
What Does this Mean – Pre-AIA Validity Challenge Options
Are the Invalidity Arguments Based On Prior Art?
Is the Prior Art a Printed Publication?
Was the Application Filed Before 11/29/99?
Ex Parte Reexam
Inter Partes Reexam
Litigation
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
17
What Does this Mean – Post-AIA Validity Challenge Options
No
Are the Invalidity Arguments Based On Prior Art?
Litigation Post-Grant Review or Litigation
Yes No
Is the Issued Patent Inside the Initial 9-Mo Window?
Is the Issued Patent Inside the Initial 9-Mo Window?
Is the Prior Art a Printed Publication?
Yes No
Inter Partes Review or
Ex Parte Reexam or Litigation
Post-Grant Review or
Ex Parte Reexam or Litigation
Yes No
Yes
18
Distinctions that Influence Business Decisions
Factors Post-Grant Review Inter Partes Review Litigation
Burden of Proof
Preponderance of Evidence Clear and Convincing Evidence
Presumption of Validity
No Yes
Claim scope Broadest reasonable interpretation (Suitco)
Narrow construction (Phillips)
Complexity and nature of attack
Any basis other than best mode
Many references but limited to printed publications
-Fewer references
-Any basis but best mode
Decision maker
PTAB Average Juror
19
Other Factors to Assist in Business Decisions
• Complex Argument – Attack under § 103 will be preferable at the PTAB relative to
district court so that large number of combinations is possible.
• Intervening Rights after Marine Polymer – A patentee’s pleadings and arguments defending the patent
in a Post-Grant or Inter Partes Review proceeding could create intervening rights which would shorten the damages period.
– Marine Polymer, 659 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2011), held that arguments narrowing the scope of the patent can create additional file history estoppel and truncate the damages period, even if the claims are not amended.
20
Other Factors to Assist in Business Decisions – Inter Partes Review
Monitor Third Party Patents
and Patent Applications.
Is the Patent Owner or Assignee Litigious?
Does the Patent Broadly Relate to your Technology?
Determine the Availability of Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications.
21
Other Factors to Assist in Business Decisions – Post-Grant Review
Monitor Third Party Patents
and Patent Applications.
Is the Patent Owner or Assignee Litigious?
Does the Patent Broadly Relate to your Technology?
Consider All Grounds of Invalidity.
22
Other Factors to Assist in Business Decisions - Patentees
• Current patent seekers should file before the effective date (3/16/13) to avoid future Post-Grant Review.
• Patents subjected to Post-Grant Review or Inter Partes Review might emerge stronger.
23
Hypothetical #1
• Your Company is sued for patent infringement on a patent that issued a year earlier. You have found printed publication prior art teaching every element of the claim. Should you introduce the prior art in litigation as an invalidity defense or should you initiate an Inter Partes Review after September 16, 2012?
24
Hypothetical #2
• It is August 2012. Your Company has received a demand letter and wants to challenge the validity of the patent based on your Company’s own product and literature predating the patent. You must determine whether to initiate an Inter Partes Reexamination, wait to file an Inter Partes Review, or wait to file an Inter Partes Review and a subsequent DJ Action in your home forum. Which option will you choose?
25
Hypothetical #3
• Your Company is sued for Patent Infringement on a patent that issued a year earlier. You have a prior art reference that discloses 2 of the 5 claim elements. Each other claim element is disclosed in different prior art references. Should you seek to challenge the patent in the district court, or file an Inter Partes Review?