Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IPRs,CBMs,andthePTAB:WhereHaveWeBeenandWhere
AreWeGoing?MODERATOR
StevenMaslowski,AkinGumpStraussHauer&Feld,LLP,Philadelphia,PASPEAKERS
Hon.DavidRuschke,U.S.PatentandTrademarkOffice,Alexandria,VAFrankAngileri,BrooksKushmanP.C.,Southfield,MIScoPKamholz,FoleyHoagLLP,Washington,DCMickyMinhas,MicrosoSCorp.,Redmond,VA
BrianZielinski,Pfizer,Inc.,NewYork,NY
UpdateonPTABStaWsWcs(dataasof6/30/16;tobeupdated
priortomeeWng)Hon.DavidRuschke
ChiefJudge,PatentandTrialAppealBoard
PTABCasesattheSupremeCourt
ScoPE.Kamholz,M.D.,Ph.D.PartnerandFormerAdministraWve
PatentJudgeFoleyHoagLLP
PTABattheSupremeCourt
• Cuozzoandrelatedcases• Non-PTABpatentcasesinwhichcert.hasbeengranted
• PTABcaseswithcert.pending• NotablePTABcert.denials• Casestowatch
CuozzoandRelatedCases
• TwoquesWons– 1.ClaimconstrucWon:BRIvs.Phillips
• Answer:BRI– 2.DecisiontoInsWtuteunreviewable?
• Answer:Yes,evenaSerfinaldecision,buthavenotconsideredconsWtuWonalityorotherstatutes
• Click-to-Callv.Oracle:GVRinlightofCuozzo– UnreviewableevenifinsWtuWondecisionisre-confirmedinthefinalwriPendecision?
– Issueconcernsone-yearbarunder35U.S.C.§315(b)
Non-PTABCert.Grants
• LifeTechv.Promega– Commoditycomponent:acWveinducementunder271(f)(1)?
• SCAHygienev.FirstQualityBabyProds– Lachesdefense:35U.S.C.§286orPetrella?
• Samsungv.Apple– Designpatents:calibraWngdamages
PendingCert.Cases
• MCMv.HP:consWtuWonalityunderArt.IIIand7thAmendment
• Cooperv.Lee:same• TradingTechsv.Lee:interlocutoryreviewabilityofCBMinsWtuWon
• Merckv.Gnosis:substanWalevidencestandardofreview
• Shawv.AutomatedCreel:reviewabilityof§315(b)non-denial;meritsofobviousnessdeterminaWon
• GEAProcessEng’gv.SteubenFoods:earlyterminaWon
PendingCert.#1:MCMv.HP
• QuesWonspresented– DoesIPRviolateArWcleIIIoftheConsWtuWon?– DoesIPRviolatetheSeventhAmendmentoftheConsWtuWon?
• HasaPractedmanyamici• CalendaredforSeptember26,2016conference
MCMv.HP,cont.• PicksupwherePatlexv.MossinghoffleSoff– ChallengedexpartereexaminaWonstatueonsameconsWtuWonalitygrounds(alsoFiShAmendmenttaking)
– ArguedthatperMcCormickv.Aultman(1898)patentbecomesprivatepropertyrightupongrantbeyondreachoftheexecuWvebranch
– FederalCircuitupheldconsWtuWonality• DisWnguishedMcCormick,whichlackedstatutoryframework• Describedpatentsasmoreakintopublicrightthanprivateright
• CerMorarinotsought
MCMv.HP,cont.• SupremeCourtleSconsWtuWonalityopeninCuozzobut
gavesomehints:– declinedtoundercut“congressionalobjecWve”of“givingthePatentOfficesignificantpowertorevisitandreviseearlierpatentgrants”(slipop.8)
– “Morelikeaspecializedagencyproceeding”(id.at15)– “ParWes…maylackconsWtuWonalstanding”(id.)– “PatentOfficemayinterveneinalaterjudicialproceeding”(id.)– “[T]heproceedingoffersasecondlookatanearlieradministraWvegrantofapatent”(id.at16)
– IPR“helpsprotectthepublic’s‘parmountinterestinseeingthatpatentmonopolies…arekeptwithintheirlegiWmatescope.’”(id.)
PendingCert.#2:Cooperv.Lee• StemsfromCAFC’saffirmanceofsummaryjudgmentagainstCooperinacivilacWonagainsttheUSPTOcontesWngconsWtuWonalityofIPR.
• QuesWonpresented:“Whether35U.S.C.§318(b)violatesArWcleIIIoftheUnitedStatesConsWtuWon,totheextentthatitempowersanexecuWveagencytribunaltoassertjudicialpowercancelingprivatepropertyrightsamongprivateparWesembroiledinaprivatefederaldisputeofatypeknowninthecommonlawcourtsof1789,ratherthanmerelyissueanadvisoryopinionasanadjuncttoatrialcourt.”
Cooperv.Lee,cont.
• CalendaredforSeptember26,2016conference
• ProcedurallyearlierthanMCMbutrecordlessdeveloped
• Secondcert.peWWonpendingfromCAFC’saffirmanceofPTABfinaldecision(Cooperv.Square)
PendingCert.#3:TradingTechsv.Lee
• PatentOwnersoughtmandamusfromCAFCtoorderUSPTOtovacateCBMinsWtuWon– arguedthatpatentwasnoteligibleforCBMreview
• CAFCdeniedmandamuswithoutprejudicetoraisinginsWtuWonissueonappeal
• USPTOwaivedrespondentbrief• CalendaredforSeptember26,2016conference
PendingCert.#4:Merckv.Gnosis*
• PTABcanceledchallengedclaimsinfinaldecisionforobviousness
• CAFCaffirmedinsplitdecision,relyingheavilyon“substanWalevidence”standardofreviewforfactualdeterminaWons
• CAFCdeclinedenbancreview(Zurko),but…• ConcurringopinionbyJ.O’Malley(withJJ.WallachandStoll):substanWalevidencestandard“seeminglyinconsistent”withthepurposeofAIA.
*SEKwrotePTABdecision
PendingCert.#5:Shawv.AutomatedCreel
• QuesWonspresented(paraphrase):– 1.IsdecisiontoinsWtutereviewableifbasisisaddressedinfinalwriPendecision?(SimilartoClick-to-Call)
– 2.CantheCAFCdisregarditsownprecedentinreviewingthemeritsofanobviousnessdeterminaWon?
• CasepresentedinteresWngissues(J.Moore’soralhearingquipaboutthePTAB“blindlythrowingdarts,”J.Reyna’sspecialconcurrenceonthePTAB’s“RedundancyDoctrine”)butnotaddressedinpeWWonforcerMorari
PendingCert.#6:GEAProcessv.Steuben
• IPRinsWtutedbutlaterterminatedupondeterminaWonthattheidenWficaWonofthereal-parWes-in-interestwerenotcorrect
• PeWWonerappealedandalsosoughtmandamusfromCAFConthebasisthatPTABlacksauthoritytovacateaninsWtuWondecision
• CAFCdismissedappealanddeniedmandamus– “[A]dministraWveagenciespossessinherentauthoritytoreconsidertheirdecisions,subjecttocertainlimitaWons,regardlessofwhethertheypossessexplicitstatutoryauthoritytodoso.”
NotablePTABCert.Denials
• Versatav.SAP– CBMscope,BRI
• ReMrementCapitalv.U.S.Bancorp– Is§101acondiWonofpatentability?
CasestoWatch
• IBSv.Illumina*– JudicialreviewofPTAB’srule-baseddecisions(peWWonerreplyexceedingpermissiblescope)
• Ethiconv.Covidien– DelegaWnginsWtuWondecisiontoPTAB;samepanel
• PPCBroadbandv.CorningOpMcal– ClaimconstrucWon,secondaryconsideraWons
*SEKwasonPTABpanel
OtherPTABIssues:Redundancy,Appealability
FrankAngileri,BrooksKushmanP.C.
Redundancy• PeWWonersgenerallyproposemulWplegroundsforchallenge,toavoidestoppel.
• PTABmaydeclinetoinsWtuteonanygroundas“redundant.”– InIPR,PTAB“mayauthorizethereviewtoproceed...onallorsomeofthegroundsofunpatentabilityassertedforeachclaim.”37C.F.R.§42.108(a).
– ReasoningforredundancyposiWongenerallynotexplainedindetail.
Redundancy–TwoTypes?• LibertyMutualIns.Co.v.ProgressiveIns.Co.,No.CBM-2012-0003(PTAB
Oct.25,2012).– “Horizontal”–“[I]nvolvesapluralityofpriorartreferencesappliednotin
combinaWontocomplementeachotherbutasdisWnctandseparatealternaWves.AllofthemyriadreferencesreliedonprovideessenWallythesameteachingtomeetthesameclaimlimitaWon,andtheassociatedargumentsdonotexplainwhyonereferencemorecloselysaWsfiestheclaimlimitaWonatissueinsomerespectsthananotherreference,andviceversa.BecausethereferencesarenotidenWcal,eachreferencehastobebePerinsomerespectorelsethereferencesarecollecWvelyhorizontallyredundant.”
– “VerWcal”–“[I]nvolvesapluralityofpriorartappliedbothinparWalcombinaWonandinfullcombinaWon.Intheformercase,fewerreferencesthantheenWrecombinaWonaresufficienttorenderaclaimobvious,andinthelaPercasetheenWrecombinaWonisreliedontorenderthesameclaimobvious.TheremustbeanexplanaWonofwhytherelianceinpartmaybethestrongerasserWonasappliedincertaininstancesandwhytherelianceinwholemayalsobethestrongerasserWoninotherinstances.Withoutabi-direcWonalexplanaWon,theasserWonsareverWcallyredundant.”
Redundancy–AThirdType?• Denialsbasedonredundancyalsomaybeduetoaneedtocontrol
thePTABdocket,notonsubstanWveevaluaWonofmerits.• OralArgumentinShawIndus.Group,Inc.v.AutomatedCreelSyst.,
Inc.,817F.3d1293(Fed.Cir.2016):– JudgeMoore:“IunderstoodtheredundancydecisionbythePTOnot
tobeasubstanWvedecision...Butrather...redundantintermsoftoomanydifferentgroundsofrejecWon,we’regoingtoonlydecidethese,we’renotexpressinganyindicaWonordecisionwithregarding[sic]thevalidityoftheseothers.”
– PTOSolicitor:“Yourunderstandingiscorrect,yourHonor.WhentheBoardsaysthatthegroundsareredundant,theyweren’ttalkingabout‘cumulaWve’orsomethingofthatnature.Theywerebasicallyjusttryingtosay,‘we’vealreadyfoundthatwecangoforwardonthisparWcularclaimunderonetheory,wedon’thavetogoforwardonthatsameclaimonmulWpletheories.’”
Redundancy–BasisofRejecWon• Thus,groundsmaybedeniedasredundanteveniftheyinvolvedifferentreferences,withdifferentdisclosures,anddifferenttheoriesofunpatentability.
• Mayraisedueprocessconcerns,andimplicateAdministraWveProceduresAct.– SeeShawIndus.(Reyna,J.Concurring):“InsomeofthesedecisionstheBoardappearstofindredundancynotonanysubstanWvebasis,butratheronthebasisthatitneedonlyhearonegroundforeachclaimandthathearingmulWplegroundsmightrequire‘redundant’effortonitspart.”
Redundancy–Appeal
• DenialofinsWtuWonbasedonredundancy–ofanytype–isnotreviewableonappeal.– BoarddecisiontoinsWtutecannotbeappealed.35U.S.C.§314(d).CuozzoSpeedTechs.,LLCv.Lee,136S.Ct.2131(2016)
– AdenialofinsWtuWonisnotsubjecttomandamus.St.JudeMedicalv.VolcanoCorp.,749F.3d1373(Fed.Cir.2014).
Redundancy–JudgeReyna’sView• “[R]egardlessofwhethertheBoard’sinsWtuWondecisionscanbeappealed,theBoardcannotcreateablackboxdecisionmakingprocess.ConclusorystatementsareanWtheWcaltotherequirementsoftheAdministraWveProceduresAct(‘APA’),whichthePTOanditsBoardaresubjectto.”
• “ThePTOhaslostsightofitsobligaWonto‘considertheeffectof’itsimplementaWonoftheIPRprocesson‘theintegritythepatentsystem’asawhole.35U.S.C.§316(b).”
Redundancy–Estoppel• DenialofinsWtuWonmayhavesignificanteffectonestoppel:– “ThepeWWonerinaninterpartesreviewofaclaiminapatentunderthischapterthatresultsinafinalwriPendecision...maynotasserteitherinacivilacWon[oranITCacWon]thattheclaimisinvalidonanygroundthatthepeWWonerraisedorreasonablycouldhaveraisedduringthatinterpartesreview.35U.S.C.§315(e).
– InShawIndus.,thePTOrepresentedthatitwouldnotapplyestoppelbasedongroundsnotinsWtutedasredundant.
– But,“Whetherestoppelapplies,however,isnotfortheBoardorthePTOtodecide.”(Reyna,J)
Appealability
• FinalwriPendecisionissubjecttoappellatereview.
• But,“[t]hedeterminaWonbytheDirectorwhethertoinsWtuteaninterpartesreviewunderthissecWonshallbefinalandnonappealable.”35U.S.C.§314(d).
CuozzoSpeed
• FirstSupremeCourtcasereviewingAIAtrialproceedings.
• Point1-USPTO’srulesapplyingtheBRIclaimconstrucWonstandardwerereasonableandwithintherulemakingauthoritydelegatedtotheOfficeintheAIA.(8-0)
• Point2–InsWtuWondecisionsgenerallynotappealable.(6-2)
CuozzoSpeed• AlthoughadministraWveproceedingsgenerallyaresubject
tocourtoversight,thatpresumpWonmustbesetasidebecausetheAIAexpresslyprovidesthatthedecisiontoinsWtuteisnotappealable.See35U.S.C.§314(d).
• TheCourtnotedthatthe“noappeal”ruleisconsistentwiththeAdministraWveProceduresAct,whichdoesnotpermitappellatereviewof“preliminary”agencyrulings.
• But,theCourtnotedthatdespite§314(d),aninsWtuWondecisioncouldbeappealedtolodgeaconsWtuWonalchallengeandotherextraordinarysituaWons,suchastheUSPTOacWngoutsideitsstatutorylimits.
PossibleGroundsforAppealingInsWtuWonDecision
• “Minerun”challengesnotappealable.ProhibiWononlyappliestoaPacksinvolving“quesWonsthatarecloselyWedtotheapplicaWonandinterpretaWonofstatutes”relatedtotheinsWtuWondecision.
• Leaving:– ConsWtuWonalquesWons(e.g.,dueprocess).– Adecisiongoingbeyondthe“statutory”limitsoftheAIA(e.g.,reviewbasedongroundnotpermiPedbystatute).
– IssuesrelaWngto“other,lesscloselyrelatedstatutes,”orbasedonissuesextendingbeyondthereachof§314.
– JurisdicWonalissues(Alito).(e.g.,applicaWonof1-yearliWgaWonbar,applicaWonofCBMcriteria).
– Other“Shenanigans.”
ContrasWngIPR/CBM/PGRLiWgaWonStrategy
• OneCommonCharacterisWc–OneinsWtuted,likelihoodofcancellingclaimsishigh.– PatentownershouldconsideraggressivelyopposingpeWWon.
• AnotherCommonCharacterisWc-Ifunsuccessful,peWWonerwillfacepossibilityofestoppel.– Extentofestoppelnotyetapparent.
ContrasWngIPR/CBM/PGRLiWgaWonStrategy
• IPR–– Limitedto102/103challengesbasedonpatentsandprintedpublicaWons.
– MayresultinadverseclaimconstrucWon,whichmaybepersuasivetodistrictcourtjudge.
ContrasWngIPR/CBM/PGRLiWgaWonStrategy
• CBM–– Limitedto“businessmethod”invenWonsthatlacktechnologicalinvenWons,wherepatenthasbeenassertedagainstpeWWoner.
– Availabletochallengeallqualifyingpatentson§101grounds.
ContrasWngIPR/CBM/PGRLiWgaWonStrategy
• PGR–– OnlyavailableofAIApatents(filedaSer3/16/2013)
– Maychallengeonanyground(exceptfailuretodisclosebestmode).
– Butbreadthofpossiblegroundsmayresultinbroaderestoppeleffect.
OtherPTABIssues:MoWonstoAmend
MoWonstoAmend• PatentownerhasburdenofdemonstraWngthatproposed
subsWtuteclaimsarepatentableovertheknownpriorart.IdleFreeSys.,Inc.v.Bergstrom,Inc.,IPR2012–00027,Paper26,2013WL5947697(PTABJune11,2013).
• ForpurposesofmoWonstoamendunder37C.F.R.§42.121“knownpriorart”refersto:– (a)anymaterialartintheprosecuWonhistoryofthepatent;– (b)anymaterialartofrecordinthecurrentproceeding,includingart
assertedingroundsonwhichthePTABdidnotinsWtutereview;and– (c)anymaterialartofrecordinanyotherproceedingbeforethe
USPTOinvolvingthepatent.SeeMasterimage3D,Inc.v.RealdInc.,No.IPR2015-00040,Paper42,2015WL4383224(PTABJul.15,2015)
PatentTrialandAppealBoardMoWontoAmendStudy(4/30/2016)
• StudyofmoWonstoamendtodetermine:– (1)thenumberofmoWonstoamendthathavebeenfiledinAIAtrials,bothasacumulaWvetotalandbyfiscalyear;
– (2)subsequentdevelopmentsofeachmoWontoamend;
– (3)thenumberofmoWonstoamendrequesWngtosubsWtuteclaimsthataregranted,granted-in-partanddenied-in-part,anddenied;and
– (4)thereasonstheBoardhasprovidedfordenyingentryofsubsWtuteclaims.
CaseLawDevelopments• Prolitecv.Scentair,2015-1020(Fed.Cir.Dec.4,2015)
– AffirmingPTABdenialofmoWontoamend“onameritsassessmentoftheenWrerecorddevelopedonthemoWon,notjustontheiniWalmoWonitself,”including“thatthepatentee'sburdenonamoWontoamendincludestheburdentoshowpatentabilityoverpriorartfromthepatent'soriginalprosecu8onhistory.”
– PriorartinoriginalprosecuWonhistoryis“priorartofrecord”asstatedintheIdleFreeandMarterImagedecisionsofthePTAB.
– DissentbyJudgeNewman:refusaltoallowanamendmentwas“contrarytoboththepurposeandthetextoftheAmericaInventsAct....[E]ntryofacompliantamendmentis[a]statutoryright,andpatentabilityoftheamendedclaimisproperlydeterminedbythePTABduringtheIPRtrial,notforthefirstWmeattheFederalCircuit.”
CaseLawDevelopments• InReAquaProducts,2015-1177(Fed.Cir.May25,2016)– Inashortopinion,theFederalCircuithasreaffirmedtheUSPTO’sWghtlyrestricWveapproachtoamendmentpracWceinInterPartesReview(IPR)proceedings.Undertherules,apatenteehasoneopportunitytoproposeamendmentsorsubsWtuteclaims.However,themoWontoamendwillonlybegrantedifthepatenteealsodemonstratesinthemoWonthattheproposedamendmentswouldmaketheclaimspatentableovertheknownpriorart.SeeIdleFreeSys.,Inc.v.Bergstrom,Inc.,IPR2012–00027,2013WL5947697(PTABJune11,2013).
CaseLawDevelopments• InReAquaProducts–enbancorder(Fed.Cir.Aug.12,2016)
(a) InanIPR,whenthepatentownermovestoamendclaimsunderPatentActsecWon316(d),maytheUSPTOrequirethepatentownertobeartheburdenofpersuasion,oraburdenofproducWon,regardingpatentabilityoftheamendedclaims?
(b) WhenthepeWWonerinanIPRdoesnotchallengethepatentabilityofproposedamendedclaimsortheBoardfindsthechallengeinadequate,maytheBoardraiseapatentabilitychallengeonitsown,andifso,wherewouldtheburdenslie?