Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Last updated

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).

Contents

Structure

The PTAB is primarily made up of an Appeals Division and a Trial Division. The Appeals Division, with over 100 Administrative Patent Judges, handles appeals of patent examiner rejections, with sections adjudicating different technology areas. [1] The Trial Division, handles contested cases such as Inter Partes Review, Post Grant Review, Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents, and Derivation Proceedings. [2]

The PTAB is headed by a Chief Administrative Patent Judge, currently Scott R. Boalick. [3]

Procedures

An applicant can appeal the examiner's decision to the PTAB. The appeal procedure is described in section 1200 of the U.S. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). [4]

Typically, appeals to the PTAB are conducted ex parte . Decisions of the PTAB are typically rendered as an opinion.

Appeals

Decisions of the PTAB can be further appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) under 35 U.S.C.   § 141(a). The decisions of the CAFC may also be reviewed on a discretionary basis by the United States Supreme Court as was firmly established in 1996 in Brenner v. Manson. Under United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the USPTO Director also has authority to review decisions of the Board and even issue decisions in its name.

An alternative path is a civil action against the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under 35 U.S.C.   § 145. Any appeal arising from such a case would then be directed to the CAFC under 28 U.S.C.   § 1295.

The United States Congress, however, can change the patent laws, and thus override a precedential decision of the Supreme Court, but only for future cases and not retrospectively.

Constitutionality

In 2007, Professor John F. Duffy, a law professor, argued that, since 2000, the process of appointing judges to the BPAI (the PTAB's predecessor court) has been unconstitutional, because the judges were appointed by the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rather than by the Secretary of Commerce (a "Head of Department" under the Appointments clause of the Constitution). [5] This problem has since been rectified and current Administrative Patent Judges are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce.

Starting in 2014, parties challenged the constitutionality of the PTAB to review and cancel patent claims under the Seventh Amendment and separation of powers doctrines. [6] The Supreme Court decided in the 2018 Oil States case that this function of the PTAB was constitutional. [7]

Claim construction standards

In January 2016, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the legitimacy of the patent standards used in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board during inter partes review. [8] [9] In the case, Petitioner Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, argued that the PTAB's use of the "Broadest Reasonable Construction" (BRI) claim construction standard exceeded their authority, and that Congress had legislated that they follow the "Phillips" claim construction standard used in other U.S. Courts. [10] On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued their opinion, upholding the PTAB's BRI claim construction standard. [11] In response, in May 2018, the USPTO proposed adopting the Phillips claim construction. [12]

Principal Officers versus Inferior Officers

On October 31, 2019, a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the administrative patent judges (APJs) were Principal Officers of the United States due to the construction of the statute creating their offices. The panel further held that the members of the Board were unconstitutionally appointed under the Appointments Clause, which would require appointment through the President and confirmation by the Senate. They rectified the situation by severing the portion of the statute that restricted removal of the members of the Board, thus rendering them Inferior Officers of the United States. [13]

Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision on June 21, 2021, that affirmed that APJs were considered principal officers with "unreviewable authority", and thus had been appointed unconstitutionally. However, to remedy the matter, the Court made it so that all decisions made by the PATB were subject to review by the Director of the Patent Office, who was an appointed position. [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Patent and Trademark Office</span> Agency in the United States Department of Commerce

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is an agency in the U.S. Department of Commerce that serves as the national patent office and trademark registration authority for the United States. The USPTO's headquarters are in Alexandria, Virginia, after a 2005 move from the Crystal City area of neighboring Arlington, Virginia.

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.

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 Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) is an administrative tribunal within the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The TTAB is empowered to determine the right to register a trademark. It has no authority to determine the right to use one, nor broader questions of infringement, unfair competition, damages or injunctive relief. The TTAB decides ex parte appeals from decisions by USPTO Examiners denying registration of marks, and inter partes proceedings challenging the registration of marks. Decisions of the TTAB may be appealed to a United States district court, or to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

NTP, Inc. is a Virginia-based patent holding company founded in 1992 by the late inventor Thomas J. Campana Jr. and Donald E. Stout. The company's primary asset is a portfolio of 50 US patents and additional pending US and international patent applications. These patents and patent applications disclose inventions in the fields of wireless email and RF Antenna design. The named inventors include Andrew Andros and Thomas Campana. About half of the US patents were originally assigned to Telefind Corporation, a Florida-based company partly owned by Campana.

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.

The Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution empowers the President of the United States to nominate and, with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the United States Senate, appoint public officials. Although the Senate must confirm certain principal officers, Congress may by law invest the appointment of "inferior" officers to the President alone, or to courts of law or heads of departments.

Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (1999), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that appeals from the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences are to be reviewed for whether the Board's conclusions are supported by "substantial evidence" under the APA.

Amanda Blackhorse is a social worker and member of the Navajo people who is known for her work as an activist on the Washington Redskins name controversy. She is the lead plaintiff in Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc.

The Washington Redskins trademark dispute was a legal effort by Native Americans to define the term "redskin" to be an offensive and pejorative racial slur to deprive the owners of the NFL's Washington Redskins of the ability to maintain federal trademark protection for the name. These efforts had primarily been carried forward in two cases brought before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). While prevailing in the most recent case in which the trademarks were cancelled, petitioners withdrew for further litigation now that the legal issue has become moot due to a decision in another case which found the relevant portion of the trademark law to be an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of speech.

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.

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">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.'"

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.

Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18–302, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), is a Supreme Court of the United States case related to the registration of trademarks under the Lanham Act. It decided 6–3 that the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting registration of trademarks of "immoral" or "scandalous" matter is unconstitutional by permitting the United States Patent & Trademark Office to engage in viewpoint discrimination, which violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

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

Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B. V., 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the trademarkability of a generic terms appended with a top-level domain (TLD) specifier. The Court ruled that such names can be trademarked unless the existing combination of term and TLD is considered to have a generic meaning to consumers.

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. ↑ "Appeals (Patent Trial and Appeal Board)". United States Patent and Trademark Office. Retrieved 4 December 2014.
  2. ↑ "Trials (Patent Trial and Appeal Board)". United States Patent and Trademark Office.
  3. ↑ Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
  4. ↑ USPTO, Chapter 1200 Appeal, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure.
  5. ↑ John F. Duffy, Are Administrative Patent Judges Unconstitutional?, 2007, Patently-O Patent L.J. 21, or Duffy, John F., "Are Administrative Patent Judges Unconstitutional?" . Available at ssrn.com
  6. ↑ "The Road To Oil States: How AIA Reviews Got To The Justices". Law360. Retrieved 13 September 2017.
  7. ↑ "OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, PETITIONER v. GREENE'S ENERGY GROUP, LLC, ET AL" (PDF). supremecourt.gov. Retrieved 12 May 2018.
  8. ↑ "Docket sheet summarizing Supreme Court case". Docket Alarm. Retrieved 20 January 2016.
  9. ↑ "Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee - SCOTUSblog". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 2018-08-13.
  10. ↑ "Cuozzo Opening Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court". Docket Alarm. Retrieved 20 January 2016.
  11. ↑ "Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, Petitioner v. Michelle K. Lee, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, Patent and Trademark Office, 15-446, Adjudged to be AFFIRMED Breyer J (U.S. Jun. 20, 2016)" . Retrieved 23 November 2016.
  12. ↑ "USPTO Proposes Claim Construction Rule Change from BRI to Philips in AIA Review Proceedings". The National Law Review. Retrieved 2018-08-13.
  13. ↑ Moore, Kimberly Ann (October 31, 2019). "Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc" (PDF). www.cafc.uscourts.gov. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Retrieved November 4, 2019.
  14. ↑ Liptak, Adam (June 21, 2021). "Supreme Court Says Over 200 Patent Judges Were Improperly Appointed". The New York Times . Retrieved June 21, 2021.
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.