Inter partes review

Last updated

An inter partes review (IPR) is a procedure for challenging the validity of a United States patent before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Contents

History

The inter partes review procedure was enacted on September 16, 2012 as part of the America Invents Act. [1] It replaced a previous review procedure called inter partes reexamination, which in turn stemmed from ex parte reexamination proceedings. Under the ex parte system, any person at any time could challenge the validity of a patent on the basis that its claims were obvious or not new based on prior art. [2] Under post-2012 inter partes review, petitioners must demonstrate a "reasonable likelihood that" the party challenging the patent at issue "would prevail" in the dispute, rather than requiring that it demonstrate a "substantial new question of patentability." [2]

Process

An inter partes review is used to challenge the patentability of one or more claims in a U.S. patent only on a ground that could be raised under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (novelty) or 103 (non-obviousness), and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. [3] The procedure is conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). [4] Whereas patent validity used to require a jury trial within the District Courts, the inter partes review process allows the PTAB to hold a hearing with the respective parties and make its decision from that. Appeals to a PTAB's decision are heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This process is designed to reduce the costs and time of litigating patents; a jury trial may require millions of dollars to be spent by parties, while an inter partes review can cost only hundreds of thousands of dollars or less in some cases. [5]

One may still issue a patent challenge in a District Court, rather than request an inter partes review. [6] As of mid-2017, over a thousand patents have been cancelled as a result of the inter partes review process, and there were more inter partes review cases heard through mid-2017 compared to any individual circuit court. [6]

The adoption of the inter partes review has had mixed reactions from American companies. Large technology firms, like Apple, Google, Intel and Amazon, support the system and have used the inter partes review process to challenge uncertain patents held by those who they perceive to be patent trolls and to fend off challenges to their own patents from other firms. [5] For example, Apple had sought an inter partes review of patents owned by VirnetX; VirnetX had taken Apple to court over patent violations, which found in favor for VirnetX and resulted in Apple fines over US$1 billion. Should Apple succeed in its inter partes review, it would be able to nullify the decision of this patent infringement suits. [7]

Other industries, particularly in the biomedical and pharmaceutical arenas, are critical of the inter partes review as it allows rivals to easily challenge their patents, which generally represent the culmination of large amounts of research and development time and costs. One well-reported case of this was Kyle Bass, who manages the Coalition for Affordable Drugs (CFAD). Bass challenged the validity of 28 pharmaceutical corporations' patents through the inter partes review process, claiming that he wanted to invalidate weak patents imposing costs on consumers, thus making drugs covered by those patents more affordable. [8] [9] The drug companies targeted by Bass allege that the sole purpose of the validity challenges was to allow Bass to short the market and thus profit from the change in companies' stock prices. [10] However, at least one event study indicates that if Bass had in fact pursued such a strategy, he could not have profited, because his "petitions for inter partes review ... did not consistently produce statistically significant negative returns in the patent holders' share prices." [11]

Randall Rader, a former Chief Judge on the Federal Appeals Court, criticized the inter partes review process, as the small number of administrative judges on the PTAB would be "acting as death squads, killing property rights". [12] The "patent death squad" term has since been used frequently as reference to the PTAB by those critical of the inter partes review. [6]

Opponents of the inter partes review have sought both changes in legislation through the United States Congress, as well as seeking case ruling.

Sovereign immunity

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled in 2017 that patents of the University of Florida could not be challenged because it had sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution as part of the government of Florida. [13] [14] Some patent law firms then began advising patent holders to sell them to and lease back from native American tribes which have tribal sovereignty. [6] In 2018, a federal appeals court ruled that tribal sovereignty did not protect these patents from challenge, as the PTO was simply reconsidering its previous actions. [15]

Cuozzo Speed Tech v. Lee (2016)

In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee that the patent agency was within the scope of the law to issue regulations that construe claims in an issued patent according to their "broadest reasonable interpretation," [2] rather than on a more restrictive reading based on their "plain and ordinary meaning," as is the custom in courts. [16] This determination was grounded in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. ("Chevron deference"), which set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers when the text is ambiguous. [2] They additionally opined that the standard was in line with the public purpose of patent law, since construing a patent claim according to its broadest reasonable construction helps to protect the public by increasing the likelihood that a patent examiner will deny a patent claim on the basis that it is too broad, thereby encouraging applicants to draft their claims narrowly and preventing patents "from tying up too much knowledge, while helping members of the public draw useful information from the disclosed invention and better understand the lawful limits of the claim." [17]

The decision also affirmed that the PTAB's decision to grant an IPR proceeding is not appealable to the Federal courts, as the text of §314(d) of the statute expressly states that such decisions "shall be final and nonappealable." [2]

Oil States v. Greene's Energy (2018)

In April 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC that validated the constitutionality of the inter partes review. The legal question asked to the Court was whether Congress violated the Constitution (specifically, either Article III or the Seventh Amendment) by giving the PTAB judicial powers through the inter partes review that otherwise belong to the judicial system. In the 7–2 decision, the Court found that the granting of patents is considered a public right, and Congress has the authority to grant the Patent Office the ability to reconsider their grants as being a public right. [18]

SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu (2018)

At the same time as the Oil States ruling, the Supreme Court ruled in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu that the PTAB must include a decision on each claim that is challenged within an inter partes review, even if only a portion of those claims are reviewed during proceedings. By having the PTAB decide on each challenged claim, those claims cannot be re-challenged in another case, outside of appeals of the PTAB review. [18]

Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP (2020)

In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP that decisions to institute or not institute inter partes review, including determinations as to the 1-year bar date for filing an inter partes review petition, were not subject to judicial review. [19]

See also

Related Research Articles

Neither software nor computer programs are explicitly mentioned in statutory United States patent law. Patent law has changed to address new technologies, and decisions of the United States Supreme Court and United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) beginning in the latter part of the 20th century have sought to clarify the boundary between patent-eligible and patent-ineligible subject matter for a number of new technologies including computers and software. The first computer software case in the Supreme Court was Gottschalk v. Benson in 1972. Since then, the Supreme Court has decided about a half dozen cases touching on the patent eligibility of software-related inventions.

Business method patents are a class of patents which disclose and claim new methods of doing business. This includes new types of e-commerce, insurance, banking and tax compliance etc. Business method patents are a relatively new species of patent and there have been several reviews investigating the appropriateness of patenting business methods. Nonetheless, they have become important assets for both independent inventors and major corporations.

The United States is considered to have the most favorable legal regime for inventors and patent owners in the world. Under United States law, a patent is a right granted to the inventor of a (1) process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, (2) that is new, useful, and non-obvious. A patent is the right to exclude others, for a limited time from profiting of a patented technology without the consent of the patent-holder. Specifically, it is the right to exclude others from: making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, inducing others to infringe, applying for an FDA approval, and/or offering a product specially adapted for practice of the patent.

The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) was an administrative law body of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) which decided issues of patentability. Under the America Invents Act, the BPAI was replaced with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), effective September 16, 2012.

In United States patent law, a reexamination is a process whereby anyone—third party or inventor—can have a U.S. patent reexamined by a patent examiner to verify that the subject matter it claims is patentable. To have a patent reexamined, an interested party must submit prior art, in the form of patents or printed publications, that raises a "substantial new question of patentability". The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act makes substantial changes to the U.S. patent system, including new mechanisms for challenging patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. One of the new mechanisms is a post-grant review proceeding, which will provide patent challengers expanded bases on which to attack patents.

i4i is an independent software company specializing in the delivery of XML / SGML document processing software in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, founded by Michel Vulpe in 1993.

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 564 U.S. 91 (2011), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It deals with the presumption of validity and the standard of evidence in patent lawsuits. This case in widely considered as a prime example of a frivolous lawsuit by a patent troll, underscoring the need for a reform of the US patent law.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. was the first of a series of ongoing lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers; between them, the companies made more than half of smartphones sold worldwide as of July 2012. In the spring of 2011, Apple began litigating against Samsung in patent infringement suits, while Apple and Motorola Mobility were already engaged in a patent war on several fronts. Apple's multinational litigation over technology patents became known as part of the mobile device "smartphone patent wars": extensive litigation in fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications. By August 2011, Apple and Samsung were litigating 19 ongoing cases in nine countries; by October, the legal disputes expanded to ten countries. By July 2012, the two companies were still embroiled in more than 50 lawsuits around the globe, with billions of dollars in damages claimed between them. While Apple won a ruling in its favor in the U.S., Samsung won rulings in South Korea, Japan, and the UK. On June 4, 2013, Samsung won a limited ban from the U.S. International Trade Commission on sales of certain Apple products after the commission found Apple had violated a Samsung patent, but this was vetoed by U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">VirnetX</span> Company described as a patent troll

VirnetX is a publicly traded Internet security software and technology company based in Zephyr Cove, Nevada.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is an administrative law body of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) which decides issues of patentability. It was formed on September 16, 2012, as one part of the America Invents Act. Prior to its formation, the main judicial body in the USPTO was the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI).

Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, is a July 2015 decision of the Federal Circuit affirming the final order of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the recently created adjudicatory arm of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), invalidating as patent ineligible the claims in issue of Versata's U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350. This was the first case in the Federal Circuit reviewing a final order in a Covered Business Method (CBM) invalidation proceeding under the America Invents Act (AIA). The case set an important precedent by deciding several unsettled issues in the interpretation of the CBM provisions of the AIA>, including what are business-method patents under the AIA and whether the AIA authorizes the PTO to hold such patents invalid in CBM proceedings on the ground that they are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as "abstract ideas."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Innovation Act of the 114th Congress</span>

The Innovation Act of the 114th Congress is a bill that would change the rules and regulations surrounding patent infringement lawsuits in an attempt to reduce enforceability of patents.

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013), was a Supreme Court case, which decided, that "a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.” However, as a "bizarre conciliatory prize" the Court allowed patenting of complementary DNA, which contains exactly the same protein-coding base pair sequence as the natural DNA, albeit with introns removed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe and Restasis patent</span>

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 896 F.3d 1322 is a United States Patent case, decided by the CAFC, deciding whether or not indigenous tribes' sovereign immunity extended to patent lawsuits. In September 2017, the American pharmaceutical company Allergan agreed to transfer six pharmaceutical patents for the ophthalmic form of the drug Restasis to the St. Regis tribe of the Mohawk people. At the time, the St. Regis tribe viewed this blockbuster deal as a new, viable supply of income outside of their primary source, the gambling industry. Following the deal, Allergan received an onslaught of criticism from outside companies and politicians such as Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, who said that the deal, "'impair[s] competition across the pharmaceutical industry.'"

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the venue in patent infringement lawsuits.

Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the inter partes review process granted by Congress to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for challenging the validity of patents, rather than a jury trial, is constitutional and did not violate either Article III of the Constitution nor the Seventh Amendment.

SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the United States Patent and Trademark Office, when conducting an inter partes review, must make judgement on all patent claims contested by the petitioner.

Peter v. NantKwest Inc., 589 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2019 term.

United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution as it related to patent judges on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In a complex decision, the Court ruled that these judges were considered "primary officers" under the Appointments Clause, normally subject to appointment through the US President and the US Senate, but to remedy the matter, the Court ruled that the constitutional issue is resolved by allowing the PTAB decisions to be subject to review by the appropriately-appointed Director of the Patent Office.

Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367, was a 2020 decision by the United States Supreme Court regarding whether inter partes review institution decisions by the United States Patent and Trademark Office were subject to judicial review. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued an opinion finding that such decisions were not judicially reviewable. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority's ruling, arguing that neither Congress or the Constitution authorized a lack of judicial review of such decisions.

References

  1. ↑ "America Invents Act (AIA) Frequently Asked Questions". USPTO. Retrieved 5 April 2015.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Ogurchak, Audrey (20 June 2016). "Supreme Court decides Cuozzo Speed Technologies: BRI proper, IPR institution not appealable". IP Watchdog. Retrieved 17 November 2017.
  3. ↑ "Inter Partes Review". USPTO. Retrieved 5 April 2015.
  4. ↑ "Inter Partes Disputes". USPTO. Retrieved 31 January 2015.
  5. 1 2 Mullin, Joe (June 13, 2017). "Supreme Court will weigh in on troll-killing patent-review process". Ars Technica . Retrieved April 24, 2018.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Decker, Susan (September 20, 2017). "Apple Likes the Patent 'Death Squad.' Allergan Pays to Avoid It". Bloomberg Businessweek . Retrieved April 24, 2018.
  7. ↑ Decker, Susan; Robertson, Dennis (April 10, 2018). "Apple Must Pay $502.6 Million to VirnetX, Federal Jury Rules". Bloomberg Businessweek . Retrieved April 24, 2018.
  8. ↑ Pitts, Peter (June 10, 2015). "'Patent Death Squads' vs. Innovation". The Wall Street Journal . Retrieved April 24, 2018.
  9. ↑ "Kyle Bass plans legal action on pharma patents". www.ft.com. Retrieved 2023-11-07.
  10. ↑ "Drugmakers Strike Back: Bass Blasted Over Patent Challenges". Bloomberg.com. 2015-07-29. Retrieved 2023-11-07.
  11. ↑ "Attack of the Shorting Bass: Does the Inter Partes Review Process Enable Petitioners to Earn Abnormal Returns?". Criterion Economics, Inc. Retrieved 2023-11-07.
  12. ↑ Dutra, Tony (October 28, 2013). "Rader Regrets CLS Bank Impasse, Comments on Latest Patent Reform Bill". Bloomberg Businessweek . Retrieved April 24, 2018.
  13. ↑ Sovereign Immunity Excuses University of Florida from IPR Challenge
  14. ↑ Partnership Between Drug Giant And Native American Tribe May Affect Patent Challenges
  15. ↑ Native Tribes Can't Shield Patents From USPTO Review
  16. ↑ "Supreme Court grants Certiorari in Challenge of Inter Partes Review Proceedings".
  17. ↑ Crouch, Dennis (20 June 2016). "Supreme Court Affirms Cuozzo – Siding with Patent Office on BRI and No-Appeal". PatentLYO. Retrieved 17 November 2017.
  18. 1 2 Stohr, Greg; Decker, Susan (April 24, 2018). "Patent 'Death Squad' System Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court". Bloomberg Businessweek . Retrieved April 24, 2018.
  19. ↑ "Opinion analysis: Supreme Court forecloses judicial review that could save "bad patent claims," while dissent bemoans a "rough day" for judicial power". SCOTUSblog. 2020-04-21. Retrieved 2022-01-16.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.