$2 to $8 million AMERICA INVENTS ACT MANAGING IP RISK IN THE NEW ERA OF POST GRANT PROCEEDINGS 7/30/2013 MANAGING RISK UNDER THE AIA
|
|
- Norman Washington
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 AMERICA INVENTS ACT MANAGING IP RISK IN THE NEW ERA OF POST GRANT PROCEEDINGS John B. Scherling Antony M. Novom Sughrue Mion, PLLC July 30, $2 to $8 million 2 1
2 $1.8 billion $1.5 billion $1.2 billion $1.0 billion $1.0 billion 3 $1.8 billion (Centocor v. Abbott) (2009) arthritis medication $1.5 billion (Lucent v. Microsoft) (2007) MP3 technology $1.2 billion (Carnegie Mellon v. Marvell Tech. Group) (2012) disk drive noise reduction $1.0 billion (Apple v. Samsung) (2012) smartphone software $1.0 billion (Monsanto v. Dupont) (2012) genetically modified soybean seeds 4 2
3 $1.9 to $16.5 million
4 (2013 PwC Patent Litigation Study) 7 Are businesses making irrational decisions? 8 4
5 S&P 500 Companies Market Cap 9 The value of innovation The real value of the iphone doesn't lie in its parts or even in putting those parts together. The bulk of the iphone's value is in the conception and design of the iphone. Professor Mark J. Perry, School of Management, Flint campus, The University of Michigan. 10 5
6 Major risks faced by potential infringers Damages Six years (notice may be required) Lost profits Reasonable royalty Injunction Preliminary Permanent Attorneys' fees and other litigation expenses Uncertainty (costs and time) 11 CHALLENGING PATENTS PRIOR TO THE AIA 12 6
7 Mechanisms for challenging patents prior to AIA A company faced with a patent infringement suit or the threat of one had the options of: District court litigation (as a defendant or declaratory judgment plaintiff) Ex parte reexamination Inter partes reexamination (limited to applications filed on or after November 29, 1999) 13 District court litigation milestones (1) Complaint (3) Discovery/Scheduling (4) Claim Construction Conference (2) Answer Scheduling Order (5) Fact Discovery Closes (6) Expert Discovery Closes (7) Dispositive Motions (Summary Judgment) (10) Verdict/ (8) Pretrial - (12) Appeal Posttrial - Submissions Decisition (9) Jury Trial (11) Beginning of Appeal Begins 14 7
8 Drawbacks of district court litigation District court litigation challenging patents Standing to challenge patent: sued or under an imminent threat of suit Presumption of validity/clear and convincing evidence standard Lay judges and jury trials Claims construed in light of intrinsic record/not under BRI standard Duration not fixed (2 4 years) and typically not until 7 10 years after patent issues. (See Nat l Research Council, A Patent System for the 21st Century (2004)) Very expensive $$$ Success rates* when challenged about 40% ( ): Invalid under 102 Invalid under 103 Invlaid other Total 40% (425/1052) 42% (299/709) 39% (353/894) 40.5% (invalid) 59.5 (valid) (Success rates reflect adjudicated patents and does not reflect settlements) 15 Source: PATSTATS.ORG Drawbacks of district court litigation District court litigation forum selection strategies increases uncertainty/risk due to lack of uniformity among district courts Different local rules Different judges Range of competencies with patent litigation Range of competencies with technologies Different lengths of time through trial Different jury pools Most patent cases settle. When cases do go to Judgment patentees win 32.5% on average nationally National average masks the range of win rates by district: 11.5% to 55. Source: AIPLA QUARTERLY JOURNAL, Volume 38, Number 4 Fall
9 Ex parte reexamination trend KSR Inter partes reexamination trend KSR 18 9
10 Drawbacks of pre AIA mechanism Ex parte reexamination ex parte potentially one sided in favor of patent owner Limited to novelty and obviousness based on publications Inconsistency in quality of reexamination among examiners Patent owner may add unlimited new narrower claims Appeal to Board Duration indeterminate (ave months) Percent known to be in litigation 32% Success rates (when challenged by third party 67 % of all ex parte reexams): All claims confirmed All claims canceled Claim changes 23% 12% 65% 19 Drawbacks of pre AIA mechanism Inter partes reexamination Limited participation by third party requestor with no discovery Limited to novelty and obviousness based on publications Inconsistency in quality of reexamination among examiners Patent owner may add unlimited new narrower claims Appeal to Board Duration indeterminate (ave. 36 months) Percent known to be in litigation 67% Success rates when challenged by third party: All claims confirmed All claims canceled Claim changes 11% 42% 47% 20 10
11 CHALLENGING PATENTS UNDER THE AIA 21 Mechanisms for challenging patents post AIA Post AIA, a company faced with a patent infringement suit has the options of: District court litigation Ex parte reexamination Inter partes review Post grant review (including covered business method patents) 22 11
12 Advantages of the AIA mechanisms Ex parte reexaminations All patents (unexpired) Multiple petitions permissible No presumption of validity Claims construed under the BRI standard No estoppel Anonymity No page limits Less expensive 23 Advantages of the AIA mechanisms Inter parte review ("IPR") Converted inter partes reexamination into an adjudicative proceeding All patents (unexpired) Full participation by challenger Certain discovery permitted (initial disclosures, deposition of declarants) Trial presided over by administrative law judge (PTAB) Patent owner's ability to add new claims restricted Duration of proceeding is fixed (12 months from institution of trial) Percent known to be in litigation (as of November 30, 2012): 77% Success rates expected to parallel inter partes reexamination 24 12
13 Advantages of the AIA mechanisms Post grant review ("PGR") (effective March 16, 2013) Applicable for all first to file patents Within 9 months after the grant of a patent or issuance of a reissue patent Challenge can be on any ground of patentability (not best mode) Certain discovery permitted (initial disclosures, deposition of declarants) Trial presided over by administrative law judge (PTAB) Patent owner's ability to add new claims restricted Duration of proceeding is fixed (12 months from institution of trial) Success rates may be greater than inter partes reexamination given additional grounds 25 Advantages of the AIA mechanisms Settlement Permitted in inter partes reexamination, post grant review, and covered business method patent review Settlement terminates the proceeding with respect to the petitioner No estoppel 26 13
14 Summary comparison Ex parte Reexamination Inter Partes Review Post Grant Review Eligible Patents Any in force patent Any in force patent Patents issuing from applications subject to first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (effective date on or after March 16, 2013) Timing After issuance of any inforce patent 9 months after issuance of patent or after termination of post grant review Within 9 months of issuance of the patent Who 3 rd Parties, Patent Owner, USPTO Director 3 rd Parties 3 rd Parties Grounds Novelty and obviousness grounds based on prior art, printed publications, and patents Novelty and obviousness grounds based on prior art, printed publications, and patents Any grounds for invalidity of the patent under 282(b)(2) or (3) (except for failure to comply with the best mode requirement) 27 Summary comparison (cont'd) Threshold Ex parte Reexamination Inter Partes Review Post Grant Review Substantial new question (SNQ) of patentability affecting any claim of the patent based on printed publication and patents Reasonable likelihood that the requester would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged More likely than not that at least one of the claims challenged is unpatentable; or whether the request raises a novel or unsettled legal question important to other patents or applications Anonymity Yes No, must identify real party in interest Participation 3 rd Party is limited to making the initial request for reexamination Requester may submit declarations, obtain limited discovery, submit observations on discovery, file replies and has right to oral hearing No, must identify real party in interest Requester may submit declarations, obtain limited discovery, submit observations on discovery, file replies and has right to oral hearing 28 14
15 Summary comparison (cont'd) Ex parte Reexamination Inter Partes Review Post Grant Review Discovery None Discovery limited to deposition of witnesses submitting declarations and what is otherwise necessary in the interest of justice Discovery limited to evidence directly related to factual assertions advanced by either party in the proceeding Estoppel None Real party in interest is estopped from challenging a patent claim before the Patent Office and in district court by prior Inter Partes Review decision with respect to any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the Inter Partes Review Real party in interest is estopped from challenging a patent claim before the Patent Office and in district court by prior Post Grant Review decision with respect to any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the Post Grant Review 29 Cost comparison example Petitioner Patent Owner EP Rx PTO Fees: $12,000 (large entity) Atty Fees: $ 50K Atty Fees: $ 75K IP Rx PTO Fees: $8,800 Atty Fees: $250K Atty Fees: $250K (expired) IPR PGR PTO Fees: $9,000 request (1 20 claims) + $14,000 post institution (1 15 claims) ($200/$400 for each additional claim) Atty Fees: $375K PTO Fees: $12,000 request (1 20 claims) + $18,000 post institution (1 15 claims) ($250/$550 for each additional claim) Atty Fees: $450K Atty Fees: $375K Atty Fees: $450K D.Ct. Atty Fees: $2M $8M Atty Fees: $2M $8M * Estimate 15% to 25% for additional costs relating to disbursements such as expert fees, deposition cost, etc
16 Post grant proceeding: certainty within one year USPTO Office Patent Trial Reference Guide, Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 157/Tuesday, August 14, 2012/Rules and Regulations 31 2 Track Patent Litigation COURT ACTION PRETRIAL DISCOVERY AND MOTIONS TRIAL OF VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT DECISION BY JUDGE Track 1 1 YEAR 2YEARS 3 YEARS Track 2 VALID LIMITED DISCOVERY TRIAL OF INFRINGEMENT ONLY USPTO TRIAL MOTIONS AND USPTO DECISION INVALID NO TRIAL AMENDED LIMITED DISCOVERY INFRINGEMENT TRIAL, NO PAST DAMAGES 16
17 District Court Litigation Article III Judge and lay jury Infringement and validity Clear and convincing evidentiary standard (validity only) Claims construed in light of the intrinsic evidence Two to five years through trial Broad discovery Expensive Settlement possible Bound by Patent Office finding of unpatentability Patent Office Trials Adminstrative law judge with both technical and patent law background Validity (unpatentability) Preponderance of the evidence evidentiary standard Claims given the broadest reasonable interpretation One year to decision Limited and focused discovery Significantly less expensive Settlement possible Not bound by district court finding that patent not shown invalid Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc U.S. App. LEXIS (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2013) Prior Case Law: Once a district court case has concluded in favor of the patentee, res judicata precludes a later PTO finding of invalidity from upsetting the district court judgment. See, e.g.: Moffitt v. Garr, 66 U.S. 273, 283 (1861) ( [i]t is a mistake to suppose... that... moneys recovered on judgments in suits... might be recovered back after a patent is invalidated); In re Baxter, 698 F.3d 1349, (Fed Cir. 2012) (under well established principles of res judicata, the invalidation of a patent s claims cannot be used to reopen a final damages judgment based on those claims) (O Malley, J., concurring in a denial of rehearing en banc)
18 Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc. (cont.) Facts: CAFC affirmed district court's finding that Baxter's '434 patent was valid, but remanded for further proceedings regarding damages and injunctive relief. District court reduced damages award and Fresenius again appealed. While district court case was on appeal, CAFC affirmed PTO's rejection of the '434 claims in reexamination. Issue: Whether the cancellation of the asserted claims by the PTO in reexamination must be given effect in "pending" infringement litigation. 35 Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc. (cont.) Held: CAFC (2 1) "In light of the cancellation of Baxter's remaining claims, Baxter no longer has a viable cause of action against Fresenius. Therefore, the pending litigation is moot." Dissent by Judge Newman: The remand for the district court to address remedies issues did not undermine the finality of the previous CAFC validity determination. Accordingly, the majority decision improperly authorizes the PTO "to override and void the final judgment of a federal Article III Court of Appeals." 36 18
19 Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc. (cont.) What does this mean? Any remaining issue makes a district court verdict for the patentee vulnerable to attack from pending PTO proceedings Speed of new AIA procedures a major factor Off to the races! 37 THANK YOU 19
20 John B. Scherling John Scherling is a Partner in the San Diego office of Sughrue Mion, PLLC. Mr. Scherling's practice focuses on litigation and resolution of intellectual property disputes, primarily relating to patents, trademarks and trade secrets, from the inception of the case through trial and appeal. Mr. Scherling previously served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the United States Attorney s Office in the Southern District of California. In that capacity, he handled all aspects of litigation, including district court jury trials, bench trials and appeals in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and received numerous awards from the United States Department of Justice and the Department of State. Handling litigation matters across a wide variety of technologies, Mr. Scherling also has a technical emphasis in chemistry, as well as biochemistry and microbiology, acquired during his undergraduate studies at Iowa State University (B.S. with Honors and Distinction). Mr. Scherling received his J.D. from Vanderbilt University, where he was Order of the Coif and Associate Articles Editor of the Vanderbilt Law Review. Following receipt of his J.D., Mr. Scherling served as a law clerk to the Honorable Judith N. Keep in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. 39 Antony M. Novom Antony Novom is Of Counsel in the San Diego office of Sughrue Mion, PLLC. Mr. Novom s practice includes counseling clients on strategic creation and management of intellectual property portfolios, non infringement and validity opinions, due diligence work in connection with mergers and acquisitions, and litigation in infringement actions. Mr. Novom also has experience in litigating administrative actions before the USPTO, including interference proceedings and reexaminations. Handling technologies including molecular and cell biology, diagnostics, therapeutics, mechanical and medical devices, semiconductors, sports equipment, and green technologies, Mr. Novom has a B.S. in Biochemistry from the University of California, San Diego, and received his J.D. from California Western School of Law. Since 2006, Mr. Novom has served as a Judge Pro Tem for the Superior Court of San Diego, Central Division, during which he adjudicates small claims cases
America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings
America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings Various Post-Grant Proceedings under AIA Ex parte reexamination Modified by AIA Sec. 6(h)(2) Continue to be available under AIA Inter partes reexamination
More informationAmerica Invents Act: The Practical Effects of the New USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings
PRESENTATION TITLE America Invents Act: The Practical Effects of the New USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings Wab Kadaba February 8, 2012 1 America Invents Act of 2011 Signed by President Obama on Sept. 16, 2011
More informationThe New Post-AIA World
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP The New Post-AIA World New Ways to Challenge a US Patent or Patent Application Erika Arner FICPI ABC 2013 Conference New Orleans, LA 0 Third Party Patent
More informationStrategic Use of Post-Grant Proceedings In Light of Patent Reform
Strategic Use of Post-Grant Proceedings In Light of Patent Reform October 11, 2011 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1249 (technical name of the bill) on June
More informationPost-Grant Patent Proceedings
Post-Grant Patent Proceedings The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), enacted in 2011, established new post-grant proceedings available on or after September 16, 2012, for challenging the validity of
More informationPOST GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IN THE PTO STEPHEN G. KUNIN PARTNER
POST GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IN THE PTO STEPHEN G. KUNIN PARTNER PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD (PTAB) COMPOSITION DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS COMMISSIONER FOR TRADEMARKS APJ 2 PATENT
More informationPost-Grant Proceedings in the USPTO
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Post-Grant Proceedings in the USPTO Erika Arner Advanced Patent Law Institute, Palo Alto, CA December 12, 2013 0 Post-Grant Proceedings New AIA proceedings
More informationSughrue Mion, PLLC Washington, Tokyo, San Diego, Silicon Valley 7/2/2012
Sughrue Mion, PLLC Washington, Tokyo, San Diego, Silicon Valley www.sughrue.com This presentation is for educational purposes only, and it does not provide legal advice or comment on the application of
More informationAmerica Invents Act Implementing Rules. September 2012
America Invents Act Implementing Rules September 2012 AIA Rules (Part 2) Post Grant Review Inter Partes Review Section 18 Proceedings Derivation Proceedings Practice before the PTAB 2 Post Grant Review
More informationIPRs and CBMs : The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown. Seattle Intellectual Property Inn of Court A Presentation by Group 6 April 17, 2014
IPRs and CBMs : The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown Seattle Intellectual Property Inn of Court A Presentation by Group 6 April 17, 2014 The Governing Statutes 35 U.S.C. 311(a) In General. Subject to the
More informationUSPTO Post Grant Trial Practice
Bill Meunier, Member Michael Newman, Member Peter Cuomo, Of Counsel July 18, 2016 Basics: Nomenclature "IPRs" = Inter partes review proceedings "PGRs" = Post-grant review proceedings "CBMs" = Post-grant
More information2011 Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative
2011 Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative of clients 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 2800, Chicago,
More informationInter Partes and Covered Business Method Reviews A Reality Check
Inter Partes and Covered Business Method Reviews A Reality Check Wab Kadaba Chris Durkee January 8, 2014 2013 Kilpatrick Townsend Agenda I. IPR / CBM Overview II. Current IPR / CBM Filings III. Lessons
More informationUnited States Patent and Trademark Office. Patent Trial and Appeal Board
United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board PTAB Organization Statutory Members of the Board The Board is created by statute (35 U.S.C. 6). 35 U.S.C. 6(a) provides: There shall
More informationAIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP
AIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, 2012 A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome
More informationWhen is a ruling truly final?
When is a ruling truly final? When is a ruling truly final? Ryan B. McCrum at Jones Day considers the Fresenius v Baxter ruling and its potential impact on patent litigation in the US. In a case that could
More information2012 Winston & Strawn LLP
2012 Winston & Strawn LLP How the America Invents Act s Post-Issuance Proceedings Influence Litigation Strategy Brought to you by Winston & Strawn s Intellectual Property practice group 2012 Winston &
More informationUSPTO Implementation of the America Invents Act. Janet Gongola Patent Reform Coordinator Direct dial:
USPTO Implementation of the America Invents Act Janet Gongola Patent Reform Coordinator Janet.Gongola@uspto.gov Direct dial: 571-272-8734 Three Pillars of the AIA 11/30/2011 2 Speed Prioritized examination
More informationPart V: Derivation & Post Grant Review
Strategic Considerations in View of the USPTO s Proposed Rules Part V: Derivation & Post Grant Review Presented By: Karl Renner, Sam Woodley & Irene Hudson Fish & Richardson AIA Webinar Series Date March
More informationAmerica Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings. Jeffrey S. Bergman Kevin Kuelbs Laura Witbeck
America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings Jeffrey S. Bergman Kevin Kuelbs Laura Witbeck What is included in Post-Grant Reform in the U.S.? Some current procedures are modified and some new ones
More informationPatent Prosecution in View of The America Invents Act. Overview
Patent Prosecution in View of The America Invents Act Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff David Dutcher Paul S. Hunter 2 Overview First-To-File (new 35 U.S.C. 102) Derivation Proceedings New Proceedings For Patent
More informationPost-Grant Proceedings at the Patent Office After Passage of the America Invents Act
Post-Grant Proceedings at the Patent Office After Passage of the America Invents Act Patrick A. Doody, Partner Northern Virginia Office America Invents Act (AIA) S 23 Senate Verison Passed the Senate in
More informationNew Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by
New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan 2013 May 14, 2013 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes
More informationTECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC
TECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC www.tblawadvisors.com Fall 2011 Business Implications of the 2011 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)
More informationU.S. Patent and Trademark Office Issues Proposed Rules for Post-Issuance Patent Review under the America Invents Act
February 16, 2012 Practice Groups: Intellectual Property Intellectual Property Litigation U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Issues Proposed Rules for Post-Issuance Patent Review under the America Invents
More informationAmerica Invents Act of 2011 Part 1: Impact on Litigation Strategy Part 2: Strategic Considerations of the FTF Transition
America Invents Act of 2011 Part 1: Impact on Litigation Strategy Part 2: Strategic Considerations of the FTF Transition Dave Cochran Jones Day Cleveland December 6, 2012 Part 1: Impact on Litigation Strategy
More informationIntellectual Property: Efficiencies in Patent Post-Grant Proceedings
Intellectual Property: Efficiencies in Patent Post-Grant Proceedings By Ann Fort, Pete Pappas, Karissa Blyth, Robert Kohse and Steffan Finnegan The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) created
More informationNewly Signed U.S. Patent Law Will Overhaul Patent Procurement, Enforcement and Defense
September 16, 2011 Practice Groups: IP Procurement and Portfolio Management Intellectual Property Litigation Newly Signed U.S. Patent Law Will Overhaul Patent Procurement, Enforcement and Defense On September
More informationAmerica Invents Act H.R (Became Law: September 16, 2011) Michael K. Mutter Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch October 11-12, 2011
America Invents Act H.R. 1249 (Became Law: September 16, 2011) Michael K. Mutter Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch www.bskb.com October 11-12, 2011 H.R. 1249 became law Sept. 16, 2011 - Overview first inventor
More informationInter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation
Inter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation February 19, 2015 2 PM ET Ha Kung Wong Inter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation February 19, 2015 2 PM ET Ha Kung Wong Debbie Gibson v. Tiffany
More informationT he landscape for patent disputes is changing rapidly.
BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 84 PTCJ 828, 09/14/2012. Copyright 2012 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
More informationPROCEDURES FOR INVALIDATING, CLARIFYING OR NARROWING A PATENT IN THE PATENT OFFICE UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT (AIA)
I. Prior to AIA, there were two primary ways for a third party to invalidate a patent in the patent office: A. Interference under 35 U.S.C. 135 & 37 C.F.R. 41.202, which was extremely limited, as it required:
More informationConsiderations for the United States
Considerations for the United States Speaker: Donald G. Lewis US Patent Attorney California Law Firm Leahy-Smith America Invents Act First Inventor to file, with grace period Derivation Actions Prior user
More informationBCLT Back to School: The New Patent Law Explained (Post-Grant Procedures) Stuart P. Meyer
BCLT Back to School: The New Patent Law Explained (Post-Grant Procedures) Stuart P. Meyer Agenda Overview of AIA Post-Grant Approach More Lenses on Patents After Issuance Section 6 Post-Grant Review Proceedings
More informationPOST-GRANT REVIEW UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT GERARD F. DIEBNER TANNENBAUM, HELPERN, SYRACUSE & HIRSCHTRITT LLP
POST-GRANT REVIEW UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT GERARD F. DIEBNER TANNENBAUM, HELPERN, SYRACUSE & HIRSCHTRITT LLP TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction... 1 II. Post-Grant Review Proceedings... 1 A. Inter-Partes
More informationThe America Invents Act : What You Need to Know. September 28, 2011
The America Invents Act : What You Need to Know September 28, 2011 Presented by John B. Pegram J. Peter Fasse 2 The America Invents Act (AIA) Enacted September 16, 2011 3 References: AIA = America Invents
More informationPTAB Trial Proceedings and Parallel Litigation: Impact, Strategy & Consequences
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP PTAB Trial Proceedings and Parallel Litigation: Impact, Strategy & Consequences 2015 National CLE Conference Friday, January 9, 2015 Presented by Denise
More informationUSPTO Post Grant Proceedings
Post-Grant Proceedings Are You Ready to Practice Before the New PTAB? Bryan K. Wheelock January 30, 2013 USPTO Post Grant Proceedings The AIA created three post grant proceedings for challenging the validity
More informationCorrection of Patents
Correction of Patents Seema Mehta Kelly McKinney November 9, 2011 Overview: Three Options Certificate of Correction Reissue Reexamination in view of the America Invents Act (AIA) Certificate of Correction
More informationThe Scope and Ramifications of the New Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the USPTO
The Scope and Ramifications of the New Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the USPTO By Lawrence A. Stahl and Donald H. Heckenberg The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) makes numerous
More informationHow to Handle Complicated IPRs:
How to Handle Complicated IPRs: Obviousness Requirements in Recent CAFC Cases and Use of Experimental Data OCTOBER 2017 nixonvan.com District Court Lawsuit Statistics Number of New District Court Cases
More informationThe use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings
Question Q229 National Group: United States Title: The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings Contributors: ADAMO, Kenneth R. ARROYO, Blas ASHER, Robert BAIN, Joseph MEUNIER, Andrew
More informationChanges at the PTO. October 21, 2011 Claremont Hotel. Steven C. Carlson Fish & Richardson P.C. Bradley Baugh North Weber & Baugh LLP
Changes at the PTO October 21, 2011 Claremont Hotel Steven C. Carlson Fish & Richardson P.C. Bradley Baugh North Weber & Baugh LLP Overview: Changes at the PTO Some Causes for Reform Patent Trial and Appeals
More informationAmerica Invents Act September 19, Matt Rainey Vice President/Chief IP Policy Counsel
America Invents Act September 19, 2011 Matt Rainey Vice President/Chief IP Policy Counsel Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) Text is available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/bills-112hr1249enr/pdf/bills-112hr1249enr.pdf
More informationHow To Fix The Amendment Fallacy
Intellectual Property How To Fix The Amendment Fallacy This article was originally published in Managing Intellectual Property on April 28, 2014 by Patrick Doody Patrick A. Doody Intellectual Property
More informationCan I Challenge My Competitor s Patent?
Check out Derek Fahey's new firm's website! CLICK HERE Can I Challenge My Competitor s Patent? Yes, you can challenge a patent or patent publication. Before challenging a patent or patent publication,
More informationPolicies of USPTO Director Kappos & U.S. Patent Law Reform
Policies of USPTO Director Kappos & U.S. Patent Law Reform December 15, 2011 Speaker: Ron Harris The Harris Firm ron@harrispatents.com The USPTO Under Director David Kappos USPTO Director David Kappos
More informationAmerica Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary
PRESENTATION TITLE America Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary Christopher M. Durkee James L. Ewing, IV September 22, 2011 1 Major Aspects of Act Adoption of a first-to-file
More informationFreedom to Operate and the Use of AIA Review
Freedom to Operate and the Use of AIA Review Mark R. Benedict Dave Schmidt IP Life Sciences Exchange, Munich Germany November 15, 2016 The recipient may only view this work. No other right or license is
More informationSPECIAL REPORT May 2018 SURPREME COURT FINDS USPTO S ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT TRIALS CONSTITUTIONAL AND SETS GROUND RULES FOR THEIR CONDUCT BY THE PTAB
SPECIAL REPORT May 2018 Spring 2017 SURPREME COURT FINDS USPTO S ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT TRIALS CONSTITUTIONAL AND SETS GROUND RULES FOR THEIR CONDUCT BY THE PTAB On April 24, 2018, the United State Supreme
More informationThe Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings
The Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings Presented by: Gina Cornelio, Partner, Patent Clint Conner, Partner, Intellectual Property Litigation June 20, 2018 The Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings Gina
More informationReexamination, Reissue, Certificate of Correction and New America Invents Act Proceedings: Substantive and Strategic Overview
Reexamination, Reissue, Certificate of Correction and New America Invents Act Proceedings: Substantive and Strategic Overview Eugene T. Perez, Esq. Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP February 3, 2012
More informationFriend or Foe: the New Patent Challenge Procedures at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Friend or Foe: the New Patent Challenge Procedures at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Asserting rights are no longer the province of pencil-pushing technology companies. Many businesses, big and small
More informationAmerica Invents Act: Patent Reform
America Invents Act: Patent Reform Gunnar Leinberg, Nicholas Gallo, and Gerald Gibbs LeClairRyan December 2011 gunnar.leinberg@leclairryan.com; nicholas.gallo@leclaairryan.com; and gerald.gibbs@leclairryan.com
More informationPresented to The Ohio State Bar Association. May 23, 2012
Your Guide to the America Invents Act (AIA) Presented to The Ohio State Bar Association May 23, 2012 Overview A. Most comprehensive change to U.S. patent law in over 60 years; signed into law Sept. 16,
More informationAmerica Invents Act: Patent Reform
America Invents Act: Patent Reform Gunnar Leinberg, Nicholas Gallo, and Gerald F. Gibbs, Jr. LeClairRyan January 4 th 2012 gunnar.leinberg@leclairryan.com; nicholas.gallo@leclaairryan.com; and gerald.gibbs@leclairryan.com
More informationChapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 1 Introduction 1:1 Evolution of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act 1:1.1 Recommendations for Patent System Reform [A] The FTC Report and NRC Report [B] Patent Reform Bills 1:1.2 The Patent Reform
More informationPATENT LAW. SAS Institute, Inc. v. Joseph Matal, Interim Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and ComplementSoft, LLC Docket No.
PATENT LAW Is the Federal Circuit s Adoption of a Partial-Final-Written-Decision Regime Consistent with the Statutory Text and Intent of the U.S.C. Sections 314 and 318? CASE AT A GLANCE The Court will
More informationAMERICA INVENTS ACT. Changes to Patent Law. Devan Padmanabhan Shareholder, Winthrop & Weinstine
AMERICA INVENTS ACT Changes to Patent Law Devan Padmanabhan Shareholder, Winthrop & Weinstine American Invents Act of 2011 Enacted on September 16, 2011 Effective date for most provisions was September
More informationSENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL
SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL CLIENT MEMORANDUM On Tuesday, March 8, the United States Senate voted 95-to-5 to adopt legislation aimed at reforming the country s patent laws. The America Invents Act
More informationWhere to Challenge Patents? International Post Grant Practice Strategic Considerations Before the USPTO, EPO, SIPO and JPO
Washington, D.C. Where to Challenge Patents? International Post Grant Practice Strategic Considerations Before the USPTO, EPO, SIPO and JPO Jeffery P. Langer, PhD U.S. Patent Attorney, Partner, Washington,
More informationWhat is Post Grant Review?
An Overview of the New Post Grant Review Proceedings at the USPTO Michael Griggs, Boyle Fredrickson May 15, 2015 What is Post Grant Review? Trial proceedings at the USPTO created by the America Invents
More informationPost-SAS Implications On Parties to Inter Partes Review and Estoppel Issues
Post-SAS Implications On Parties to Inter Partes Review and Estoppel Issues Grant Shackelford Sughrue Mion, PLLC 2018 1 Agenda Background: PTAB's partial institution practice SAS Decision Application of
More informationWhite Paper Report United States Patent Invalidity Study 2012
White Paper Report United States Patent Invalidity Study 2012 1. Introduction The U.S. patent laws are predicated on the constitutional goal to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing
More informationInter Partes Review (IPR): Lessons from the First Year Matthew I. Kreeger
Inter Partes Review (IPR): Lessons from the First Year Matthew I. Kreeger mofo.com Inter Partes Review Key distinctive features over inter partes reexamination: Limited Duration Limited Amendment by Patent
More informationIntersection of Automotive, Aerospace, & Transportation: Practical Strategies for Resolving IP Conflicts in Multi-Supplier Sourcing
Intersection of Automotive, Aerospace, & Transportation: Practical Strategies for Resolving IP Conflicts in Multi-Supplier Sourcing May 28, 2014 R. David Donoghue Holland & Knight LLP 131 South Dearborn
More informationPatent Owner Use of Reexamination for Patents Granted Prior to KSR v. Teleflex. Stephen G. Kunin Partner. AIPLA Webcast, April 20, 2011
Patent Owner Use of Reexamination for Patents Granted Prior to KSR v. Teleflex Stephen G. Kunin Partner AIPLA Webcast, April 20, 2011 Should Patent Owners Use Reexamination to Strengthen Patents Issued
More informationJuly 12, NPE Patent Litigation. The AIA s Impact on. Chris Marchese. Mike Amon
The AIA s Impact on NPE Patent Litigation Chris Marchese Mike Amon July 12, 2012 What is an NPE? Non Practicing Entity (aka patent troll ) Entity that does not make products Thus does not practice its
More informationPOST GRANT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Oblon Spivak
POST GRANT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Oblon Spivak Foreword by Honorable Gerald Mossinghoff, former Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, and Stephen Kunin, former Deputy Commissioner
More informationAIA: How U.S. PTO Proceedings. are Changing Patent Litigation. Post-Grant Review Under the. Practice. David Hoffman. James Babineau.
December 11, 2014 Post-Grant Review Under the AIA: How U.S. PTO Proceedings are Changing Patent Litigation Practice Matthew Wernli David Hoffman James Babineau Post-Grant Review Under the AIA Agenda I.
More informationPost Grant Review. Strategy. Nathan Frederick Director, IP Services
Post Grant Review Strategy Nathan Frederick Director, IP Services Cardinal Intellectual Property 1603 Orrington Avenue, 20th Floor Evanston, IL 60201 Phone: 847.905.7122 Fax: 847.905.7123 Email: mail@cardinal-ip.com
More informationPatent Prosecution Update
Patent Prosecution Update March 2012 Contentious Proceedings at the USPTO Under the America Invents Act by Rebecca M. McNeill The America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) makes significant changes to contentious
More informationNavigating the Post-Grant Landscape
Navigating the Post-Grant Landscape John Alemanni Matthew Holohan 2017 Kilpatrick Townsend Overview Substantial Changes Proposed Scope of Estoppel Remains Uncertain Appellate Issues and Cases Covered Business
More informationExecutive Summary. 1 All three of the major IP law associations-- the American Bar Association IP Law Section, the American Intellectual Property
Why The PTO s Use of the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of Patent Claims in Post- Grant and Inter Partes Reviews Is Inappropriate Under the America Invents Act Executive Summary Contrary to the recommendations
More informationSophisticated Use of Reexamination and Reissue. Robert M. Asher Bromberg & Sunstein, LLP AIPLA Advanced Patent Prosecution Seminar 2005
Sophisticated Use of Reexamination and Reissue Robert M. Asher Bromberg & Sunstein, LLP AIPLA Advanced Patent Prosecution Seminar 2005 Strategies for Patentee AVOID REISSUES File Continuation Applications
More informationAnthony C Tridico, Ph.D.
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Patents Case Law in the U.S. Anthony C Tridico, Ph.D. 18 November, 2015 1 1. Teva v. Sandoz Federal Circuit it must apply a clear error standard when
More informationCORRECTION OF ISSUED PATENTS
CORRECTION OF ISSUED PATENTS 2012 IP Summer Seminar Peter Corless Partner pcorless@edwardswildman.com July 2012 2012 Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP & Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP Types of Correction Traditional
More informationThis Webcast Will Begin Shortly
This Webcast Will Begin Shortly If you have any technical problems with the Webcast or the streaming audio, please contact us via email at: webcast@acc.com Thank You! 1 Quarterly Federal Circuit and Supreme
More informationPost-Grant Patent Practice: Review & Reexamination Course Syllabus
Post-Grant Patent Practice: Review & Reexamination Course Syllabus I. CHALLENGING PATENT VALIDITY AT THE PTO VIA POST-GRANT REVIEW, INTER PARTES REVIEW, BUSINESS METHOD PATENT REVIEW, AND REEXAMINATION
More informationSEC. 6. AIA: POST-GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS
SEC. 6. AIA: POST-GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS (a) INTER PARTES REVIEW. Chapter 31 of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: Sec. 3 1 1. I n t e r p a r t e s r e v i e w. 3 1 2. P e
More informationPatent Enforcement in the US
. Patent Enforcement in the US Speaker: Donald G. Lewis US Patent Attorney California Law Firm IP Enforcement around the World in the Chemical Arts Royal Society of Chemistry, Law Group London 28 October
More informationPATENT PROSECUTION STRATEGIES IN AN AIA WORLD: SUCCEEDING WITH THE CHANGES
PATENT PROSECUTION STRATEGIES IN AN AIA WORLD: SUCCEEDING WITH THE CHANGES BY: Juan Carlos A. Marquez Stites & Harbison PLLC 1 OVERVIEW I. Summary Overview of AIA Provisions II. Portfolio Building Side
More informationLessons From IPRs Involving Agriculture-Related Patents
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Lessons From IPRs Involving Agriculture-Related
More informationPreemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter Partes Review
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Preemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter
More informationPre-Issuance Submissions under the America Invents Act
Pre-Issuance Submissions under the America Invents Act By Alan Kendrick, J.D., Nerac Analyst The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) was signed into law By President Obama in September 2011 and the final
More informationINTER PARTES REEXAMINATION MECHANICS AND RESULTS
INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION MECHANICS AND RESULTS Eugene T. Perez Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP Gerald M. Murphy, Jr. Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP Leonard R. Svensson Birch, Stewart, Kolasch
More informationGlobal IP Management Hot-Topic Round-Up
Global IP Management Hot-Topic Round-Up 1 Panelist Dr. Rouget F. (Ric) Henschel, Partner, Chemical, Biotechnology & Pharmaceutical Practice, and Co-Chair, Life Sciences Industry Team, Foley & Lardner Sven
More informationA Practical Guide to Inter Partes Review. Strategic Considerations Relating To Termination
A Practical Guide to Inter Partes Review Strategic Considerations Relating To Termination Webinar Guidelines Participants are in listen-only mode Submit questions via the Q&A box on the bottom right panel
More informationFederal Circuit Review of Post-Grant Review-Related Proceedings
Federal Circuit Review of Post-Grant Review-Related Proceedings October 7, 2015 Attorney Advertising Speakers Greg Lantier Partner Intellectual Property Litigation Emily R. Whelan Partner Intellectual
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
0 0 EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC, v. Plaintiff, MILLENIAL MEDIA, INC., Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION infringement of the asserted patents against
More informationAIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Lessons Learned from PTAB and Federal Circuit Decisions
AIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Lessons Learned from PTAB and Federal Circuit Decisions Christopher Persaud, J.D., M.B.A. Patent Agent/Consultant Patent Possibilities Tyler McAllister, J.D. Attorney at Law
More informationOverview of Trial for Invalidation and Opposition Systems in Japan. March 2017 Trial and Appeal Department Japan Patent Office
Overview of Trial for Invalidation and Opposition Systems in Japan March 2017 Trial and Appeal Department Japan Patent Office 1 Roles of Trial and Appeal Department of JPO Reviewing the examination ->
More informationVenue Differences. Claim Amendments During AIA Proceedings 4/16/2015. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Created by statute, and includes statutory members and Administrative Patent Judges Claim Amendments During AIA Proceedings The PTAB is charged with rendering decisions
More informationThe Limited Ability of a Patent Owner to Amend Claims and Present New Claims in Post-Grant and Inter Partes Reviews
The Limited Ability of a Patent Owner to Amend Claims and Present New Claims in Post-Grant and Inter Partes Reviews By: Lawrence Stahl and Donald Heckenberg The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) includes
More informationNew Law Creates a Patent Infringement Defense and Restructures the Patent and Trademark Office Pat Costello
New Law Creates a Patent Infringement Defense and Restructures the Patent and Trademark Office Pat Costello On November 29, 1999, President Clinton signed a bill containing the American Inventors Protection
More informationCase 1:09-cv SC-MHD Document 505 Filed 04/11/14 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:09-cv-09790-SC-MHD Document 505 Filed 04/11/14 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) BRIESE LICHTTENCHNIK VERTRIEBS ) No. 09 Civ. 9790 GmbH, and HANS-WERNER BRIESE,
More information(B) in section 316(a) 2. (i) in paragraph (11), by striking 3. section 315(c) and inserting section 4. (ii) in paragraph (12), by striking 6
(B) in section (a) (i) in paragraph (), by striking section (c) and inserting section (d) ; and (ii) in paragraph (), by striking section (c) and inserting section (d) ; and (C) in section (a), by striking
More informationU.S. Patent Law Reform The America Invents Act
U.S. Patent Law Reform The America Invents Act August 15, 2011 John B. Pegram Fish & Richardson What s New in 2011? Patent Law Reform is high on Congressional agenda A desire to legislate Bipartisan Patent
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Intellectual Ventures I, LLC; Intellectual Ventures II, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 16-10860-PBS Lenovo Group Ltd., Lenovo (United States
More informationThe America Invents Act: Key Provisions Affecting Inventors, Patent Owners, Accused Infringers and Attorneys
The America Invents Act: Key Provisions Affecting Inventors, Patent Owners, Accused Infringers and Attorneys James Morando, Jeff Fisher and Alex Reese Farella Braun + Martel LLP After many years of debate,
More information