Upload
patexia-inc
View
522
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Renaissance IP Law Group
PTAB vs. District Courts: Pros & Cons
Ma#hew C. Phillips Kevin B. Laurence
Renaissance IP Law Group LLP
February 11, 2016
Patexia Webinar
1
Renaissance IP Law Group
Agenda
• Tools for Challenging Patent Validity • Review of AIA Trial Procedures • AIA Trial StaMsMcs • Choosing a Forum to Challenge Validity
2
Renaissance IP Law Group
Tools for Challenging Patent Validity
3
Renaissance IP Law Group
Tools for Challenging US Patents (Pre-‐AIA Patents)
Other Basis (§§ 101, 112)
Prior Art (§§ 102, 103)
Inter Partes Review
Ex Parte Reexam LiHgaHon
Printed PublicaMon
Charged with Infringement of Bus. Meth. Pat.
Covered Business Method Patent
Review
at USPTO 4
Renaissance IP Law Group
Tools for Patent Challengers (AIA FITF Patents UnHl 9/16/20)
Inter Partes Review
Outside IniMal 9-‐Mo. Window
Other Basis (§§ 101,112)
Prior Art (§§ 102, 103)
Ex Parte Reexam LiHgaHon
Printed PublicaMon
Covered Business Method Patent
Review
Post-‐Grant Review
Inside IniMal 9-‐Mo. Window
Charged with Infringement of Bus. Meth. Pat.
Outside IniMal 9-‐Mo. Window
at USPTO 5
Renaissance IP Law Group
Tools for Challenging US Patents (AIA FITF Patents ARer 9/16/20)
Inter Partes Review
Outside IniMal 9-‐Mo. Window
Other Basis (§§ 101, 112)
Prior Art (§§ 102, 103)
Ex Parte Reexam LiHgaHon
Printed PublicaMon
Post-‐Grant Review
Inside IniMal 9-‐Mo. Window
at USPTO 6
Renaissance IP Law Group
Review of AIA Trial Procedure
7
Renaissance IP Law Group
Full Timeline for Review Proceeding
≤ 6 months
~2.5 years
Prior to Trial ≤ 12 months
Trial ~13 months
Rehearing & Appeal
8
Renaissance IP Law Group
Pre-‐Trial Proceedings
Prior to Trial Trial Rehearing & Appeal
NoMce of Filing Date
Review?
YES
PeMMon
3 mo. NO
1-‐2 wks.
Non-‐InsMtuMon Decision
Preliminary Response
up to 3 mo.
InsMtuMon Decision
9
Renaissance IP Law Group
IniMal Conference Call
Final Wri#en Decision
InsMtuMon Decision (Order)
Appeal
CerMficate
Se#lement Agreement
Oral Hearing
Patent Owner Discovery
Appeal
Procedure for Trial (Without MoHon to Amend)
PeMMoner Discovery
MoMons
Reply Response
?
DD1 DD2
DD4-DD6 DD7
10
Renaissance IP Law Group
Trial Timeline (Current Typical)
Owner Discovery Period
PeMMoner Discovery Period
1 2 3
Owner Discovery Period
7
MoMons to Exclude Evidence, Etc.
(DD4-‐DD6)
1 mo.
4 5 6
2 mos. 2 mos.
11
Renaissance IP Law Group
AIA Trial StaHsHcs
12
Renaissance IP Law Group
Review PeHHon Filings (as of Dec. 31, 2015)
1
10
100
1000
10000
IPR CBM PGR IPR CBM PGR IPR CBM PGR IPR CBM PGR IPR CBM PGR
FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2012
13
Renaissance IP Law Group
Review PeHHon Filings by Technology (FY2014-‐FY2016 through Dec. 31, 2015)
Electrical/ Computer
62%
Mechanical & Bus. Methods
23%
Chemical 6%
Bio/Pharma 9%
Design 0%
14
Renaissance IP Law Group
Trial InsHtuHon Rate (as of Dec. 16, 2015)
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
IPR CBM PGR IPR CBM PGR IPR CBM PGR IPR CBM PGR
FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016
15
Renaissance IP Law Group
IPR Survival Rate (DisposiHon of Challenged Claims)
(as of Dec. 31, 2015)
Not Subject to Trial 57%
Sebled 13%
Canceled or Disclaimed by Patent Owner
5%
Found Unpatentable
21%
Found Patentable
4%
16
Renaissance IP Law Group
IPR Survival Rate (DisposiHon of Claims Subject to Trial)
(as of Dec. 31, 2015)
Sebled 31%
Canceled or Disclaimed by Patent Owner
11%
Found Unpatentable
49%
Found Patentable
9%
17
Renaissance IP Law Group
IPR Survival Rate (DisposiHon by FWD Only)
(as of Dec. 31, 2015)
All Claims Unpatentable
72%
Some Claims Unpatentable
15%
No Claims Unpatentable
13%
18
Renaissance IP Law Group
Choosing a Forum for Challenging Validity
19
Renaissance IP Law Group
Challenge in Court or PTAB? • Assuming Both are Available for Your Validity Challenge • PotenMal Differences
– Nature of decision maker – Claim construcMon/interpretaMon – EvidenMary burdens – Nature of supporMng evidence – Discovery opportuniMes and burdens – ParMcipaMon rights – Claims frozen or fluid – Number of arguments that can pracMcally be made – Effect of overall equiMes – Costs – Timing – Standing requirements – Anonymity
20
Renaissance IP Law Group
• Decision Maker (PTAB or Court) – Comfort zone for invalidaMng duly granted patent claims
• Comfort reaching a conclusion different from the original examiner? • Comfort finding claims obvious?
– Different technical acumen • How complex are your facts? • Is the conclusion apparent once the facts are “properly” understood?
– Different predilecMon or facility with legal doctrines • Secondary consideraMons of nonobviousness • Priority enMtlement • Inherent disclosure
Challenge in Court or PTAB?
21
Renaissance IP Law Group
ConvenHonal Wisdom (Generally) in LiHgaHon and Review Proceedings
AnHcipaHon Obviousness
LiMgaMon
Review Proceeding
22
Renaissance IP Law Group
Best Bases for Aback at PTAB
IPR 103 > 102
PGR
PGR 101 > 103 > 102
CBM
23
Renaissance IP Law Group
• Claim ConstrucMon/InterpretaMon – PTAB uses broadest reasonable interpretaMon (“BRI”) – Courts
• Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cri. 2005) (en banc) • More likely narrow • Less predictable
– Is the prior art within the broadest reasonable meaning of the claims yet different from the disclosed embodiment(s)?
Challenge in Court or PTAB?
24
Renaissance IP Law Group
• EvidenMary Burdens – Preponderance standard in PTAB – Clear-‐and-‐convincing standard in court – Ask yourself: Are the issues so close that the evidenMary burden might make a difference?
• Is the prior art arguably ambiguous in its disclosure of a claim limitaMon?
• Is the prior art status of the printed publicaMon a close quesMon?
• Does the outcome turn on disputed, equally reasonable and supported expert opinions?
Challenge in Court or PTAB?
25
Renaissance IP Law Group
• Nature of SupporMng Evidence – Federal Rules of Evidence apply in both court & PTAB
• Rare for PTAB to exclude evidence – At PTAB:
• Evidence typically must be “on the paper” – Documents – DeclaraMons – DeposiMon transcripts
• Rare excepMons for live tesMmony at oral hearing in AIA trial
– Courts permit all types of evidence, incl. live tesMmony – Do you have a great witness to bring your posiMons to life?
Challenge in Court or PTAB?
26
Renaissance IP Law Group
• Discovery OpportuniMes and Burdens – In court, discovery is wide ranging – In PTAB, discovery is very limited
• DeposiMons of declarants • AddiMonal discovery is rarely granted
– Ask yourself: • Do you need any discovery from the patent owner to prove your invalidity case?
• Might the patent owner benefit from discovery from you (e.g., to prove secondary consideraMons of non-‐obviousness based on your alleged infringement)?
Challenge in Court or PTAB?
27
Renaissance IP Law Group
• ParMcipaMon Rights – Full parMcipaMon rights in court – Full parMcipaMon rights in PTAB
• PeMMon • Depose patent owner’s declarants • Reply to patent owner’s response • Oral argument
– ReexaminaMon, however, typically offers no parMcipaMon rights aner filing of request
Challenge in Court or PTAB?
28
Renaissance IP Law Group
• Claims Frozen or Fluid – Claims are frozen in court – Claims are fluid in reexaminaMon – Claims are essen4ally frozen in review
• MoMons to amend are rarely sought • MoMons to amend are rarely granted • Reissue and reexaminaMon are other opMons • Any amendment must be narrowing (except in broadening reissue) • Almost all amendments trigger intervening rights
– Does the specificaMon support a limitaMon absent from the prior art but present in the accused device?
Challenge in Court or PTAB?
29
Renaissance IP Law Group
• Number of Arguments – Limits in court
• Page limits • Time limits • PracMcal limits on judge’s paMence & indulgence
– Limits in AIA trials • Page limits • Redundancy doctrine • Best to focus on a few (1-‐3) well developed challenge grounds
– A mulMplicitous approach is be#er suited for reexaminaMon
Challenge in Court or PTAB?
30
Renaissance IP Law Group
• Effect of EquiMes – Court
• Lines between issues can be blurry • Decision maker “takes it all in” • Juries can be especially influenced by overall equity • Juries seem to be especially moved by inventors
– PTAB • Bigger picture does not usually come through • Perhaps some insMtuMonal bias against NPEs?
Challenge in Court or PTAB?
31
Renaissance IP Law Group
• Timing – One-‐year bar for IPR
• Must file IPR peMMon before 1-‐year anniversary of service of infringement complaint • No such bar for CBM or PGR
– No AIA trial possible aner DJ acMon for invalidity – Stay
• Court may stay liMgaMon pending AIA trial • Special, more liberal stay statute for CBMs
– Estoppel • FWD in AIA trial triggers estoppel against peMMoner • IPR & PGR: Scope of estoppel in court is validity challenges “raised or reasonably
could have been raised.” • CBM: Scope of estoppel in court is just validity challenges “raised.” • Don’t agonize over estoppel. Raise your validity challenges in the forum where they
are most likely to succeed (PTAB).
Challenge in Court or PTAB?
32
Renaissance IP Law Group
• Costs – Differ by order(s) of magnitude – LiMgaMon >> Review > ReexaminaMon
• Standing – No standing requirement to file review peMMon or reexaminaMon request
– But beware of standing on appeal • Anonymity
– Not possible for liMgaMon or AIA trial – Possible for reexaminaMon
Challenge in Court or PTAB?
33
Renaissance IP Law Group
Challenge in Court or PTAB?
34
Factor Court PTAB
Decision maker
Claim interp./constr.
EvidenMary burden
SupporMng evid.
Discovery
ParMcipaMon rights
No. of arguments
Claim fluidity
Effect of equiMes
Cost
Timing
Standing
Anonymity
Renaissance IP Law Group
Thank You!
35
Kevin B. Laurence Patent Attorney
Direct: (703) 448-8787 [email protected]
1940 Duke St., Suite 200
Alexandria, VA 22314 Fax: (503) 517-9919