State Universities Sovereign Immunity in PTAB Trials. June 7, 2017

Similar documents
Paper No Entered: July 13, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: December 19, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Webinar Series 2017 PTAB Year in Review

Nos , -1639, -1640, -1641, -1642, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Emerging Trends and Legal Developments in Post-Grant Proceedings

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

POST GRANT REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IN THE PTO STEPHEN G. KUNIN PARTNER

How the Xechem Decision May Insulate State Universities From Correction of Inventorship Suits

Court upholds Board s immunity from lawsuits in federal court

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

The Changing Landscape of AIA Proceedings

New Frontiers In Pharmaceutical Patent Litigation. Benjamin Hsing Irene Hudson Wanda French-Brown

IPRs and CBMs : The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown. Seattle Intellectual Property Inn of Court A Presentation by Group 6 April 17, 2014

This Webcast Will Begin Shortly

USPTO Post Grant Trial Practice

PTAB Trial Proceedings and Parallel Litigation: Impact, Strategy & Consequences

Patent Practice in View Of PTAB AIA Proceedings

2012 Winston & Strawn LLP

TECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC

Post-Grant for Practitioners: 2017 Year in Review

Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy. Case Comment. Daniel S. Tyler

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Issues Proposed Rules for Post-Issuance Patent Review under the America Invents Act

Post-Grant Patent Proceedings

Inter Partes and Covered Business Method Reviews A Reality Check

Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights and State Sovereign Immunity

December 17, 2018 Counsel for Amicus Curiae New York Intellectual Property Law Association (Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover)

U.S. Supreme Court Could Dramatically Reshape IPR Estoppel David W. O Brien and Clint Wilkins *

Is Inter Partes Review Set for Supreme Court Review?

Dale White General Counsel Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe

Navigating the Post-Grant Landscape

Ericsson, Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota and a New Frontier for the Waiver by Litigation Conduct Doctrine

State Sovereign Immunity:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Supreme Court of the United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

A (800) (800)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

RENNER OTTO UPDATES. By Stephanie Williams and Nick Gingo

America Invents Act Implementing Rules. September 2012

alg Doc 1331 Filed 06/06/12 Entered 06/06/12 15:56:08 Main Document Pg 1 of 16

Preemptive Use Of Post-Grant Review Vs. Inter Partes Review

New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by

COMMENTARY. Motions to Disqualify Opposing Counsel in Patent Trial and Appeal Board Proceedings

This Webcast Will Begin Shortly

Status Quo at the PTAB for Now: Supreme Court Makes No Change to IPR; Judicial Review and Claim Construction Standard Remain the Same

DERIVATION LAW AND DERIVATION PROCEEDINGS. Charles L. Gholz Attorney at Law

the king could do no wrong

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Uncertainty About Real Parties in Interest and Privity in AIA Trials

T he landscape for patent disputes is changing rapidly.

Case: 5:16-cv JMH Doc #: 11 Filed: 07/20/16 Page: 1 of 9 - Page ID#: 58

Intellectual Property: Efficiencies in Patent Post-Grant Proceedings

ARTICLE EX PARTE YOUNG: A MECHANISM FOR ENFORCING FEDERAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AGAINST STATES

Brief Summary of Precedential Patent Case Decisions During February 2018

Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States

The New Post-AIA World

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

A Practical Guide to Inter Partes Review. Strategic Considerations Relating To Termination

BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION

Intersection of Automotive, Aerospace, & Transportation: Practical Strategies for Resolving IP Conflicts in Multi-Supplier Sourcing

Case: 5:12-cv KKC Doc #: 37 Filed: 03/04/14 Page: 1 of 11 - Page ID#: 234

Patent Reform State of Play

Nos , -1945, WI-FI ONE, LLC,

Supreme Court of Florida

Post-SAS: What s Actually Happening. Webinar Presented by: Bill Robinson George Quillin Andrew Cheslock Michelle Moran

How Eliminating Agency Deference Might Affect PTAB And ITC

Paper Entered: February 6, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper 21 Tel: Entered: February 12, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

How to Handle Complicated IPRs:

Nos (Lead) & , -1561, -1562, -1563, -1564, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Venue Differences. Claim Amendments During AIA Proceedings 4/16/2015. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Federal Circuit Review of Post-Grant Review-Related Proceedings

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Sup. Ct. case no. SC07- DCA case no. 1D LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION

Infringement Assertions In The New World Order

In the Supreme Court of the United States

America Invents Act: The Practical Effects of the New USPTO Post-Grant Proceedings

PROCEDURES FOR INVALIDATING, CLARIFYING OR NARROWING A PATENT IN THE PATENT OFFICE UNDER THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT (AIA)

Discovery and Fact Investigation: New Patent Office Procedures under America Invents Act

Post-Grant Proceedings in the USPTO

Inter Partes Review: At the Intersection of the USPTO and District Court

Paris Article 2 National Treatment

The Edge M&G s Intellectual Property White Paper

cv IN THE. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. ELIZABETH A. TREMBLAY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

Case 3:04-cv JGC Document 27-1 Filed 10/04/2005 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Inter Partes Review Part I: Pretrial

Factors Favoring Early Settlement of Post-Grant Proceedings Landslide Vol. 8, No. 6 July/August 2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Post-Grant Trends: The PTAB Strikes Back

Trends From 2 Years Of AIA Post-Grant Proceedings

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Inter Partes Review vs. District Court Litigation

DISCLAIMER PETITIONS FILED SalishanPatent Law Conference

PATENT PROSECUTION STRATEGIES IN AN AIA WORLD: SUCCEEDING WITH THE CHANGES

Navigating Administrative Law in Patent Appeals Involving Review Proceedings

Patent Trial and Appeal Board Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.) *1 ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS. PETITIONER, v. ISIS INNOVATION LIMITED PATENT OWNER.

Case 1:13-cv GBL-IDD Document 10-2 Filed 05/16/13 Page 1 of 19 PageID# 312

Case 3:11-cv RBD-TEM Document 150 Filed 08/23/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID 3418

Paper No Entered: January 17, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Transcription:

State Universities Sovereign Immunity in PTAB Trials June 7, 2017 1

Source: NAI & IPO 2

11 th Amendment of U.S. Constitution First constitutional amendment adopted after the Bill of Rights. Adopted to overturn the Supreme Court s decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793) (allowing private citizens of another state to bring lawsuits against a state). Text: The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. 3

Patent Suits involving a State Actor Patent Infringement Suits in Federal Court State cannot be sued in federal court for patent infringement without the state s consent. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. College Sav. Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999). Correction of Inventorship in Federal Court State cannot be sued in federal court to correct inventorship under 35 U.S.C. 256 without the state s consent. Xechem Int'l., Inc. v. Univ. of Tex. M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr., 382 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Patent Interferences in PTO [C]ontested interference proceedings in the PTO bear strong similarities to civil litigation,... and the administrative proceeding can indeed be characterized as a lawsuit. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Curators of the Univ. of Mo., 473 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 23, 2007) 4

What s New? PTAB trials (IPR, CBM, PGR) created in 2012. Over 80 IPRs have been filed against patents owned by universities since 2012. In 2017, two different PTAB panels have held that 11 th Amendment Sovereign Immunity applies to IPRs: Covidien LP v. Univ. of Fla. Res. Found. Inc., IPR2016-01274 (PTAB Jan. 25, 2017) (Droesch, Moore, Ippolito, APJs) NeoChord, Inc. v. University of Maryland, Baltimore, IPR2016-00208 (PTAB May 23, 2017) (Medley, Franklin, Worth, APJs). 5

Sovereign Immunity Analysis 1. Does 11 TH Amendment apply to IPR at the PTO? 2. Is Patent Owner an Arm of a State? 3. Has Immunity been Waived? Test: Does the Administrative Proceeding walk, talk, and squawk very much like a lawsuit in District Court? FMC (US 2002). Test: (1) how state law defines the entity; (2) what degree of control the State maintains over the entity; (3) where the entity derives its funds; and (4) who is responsible for judgments against the entity. Manders (11th Cir. 2003). State law waiving immunity? Contract waiving immunity? Did Patent Owner assert patent against an infringer in district court? 6

Does 11 TH Amendment apply to IPR? 1. Does 11 TH Amendment apply to IPR at the PTO? Test: Does the Administrative Proceeding walk, talk, and squawk very much like a lawsuit in District Court? FMC (US 2002). PTAB in Covidien and NeoChord held: IPR is adversarial litigation-like proceeding between parties ( inter partes means between parties). IPR is adjudicated by federal judicial officers ( APJs ). IPR is governed by pleading standards, motions practice, and Federal Rules of Evidence. IPR procedures are based largely on interference practice (which Federal Circuit has said is covered by 11 th Amendment). 7

Is Patent Owner an Arm of a State? 2. Is Patent Owner an Arm of a State? Test: (1) how state law defines the entity; (2) what degree of control the State maintains over the entity; (3) where the entity derives its funds; and (4) who is responsible for judgments against the entity. Manders (11th Cir. 2003). PTAB in NeoCord held: No real dispute that U. of Maryland is an arm of Maryland state. PTAB in Covidien held: 1) UFRF s function is the licensing of patents on behalf of U of Florida. 2) UFRF is a direct-support-organization ( DSO ) of U of Florida. 3) UFRF s budget and personnel are under U of Florida s control. 4) UFRF s assets and liabilities are considered to be part of U of Florida s finances. 8

Has Immunity been Waived? 3. Has Immunity been Waived? State law waiving immunity? Contract waiving immunity? Asserting patent in district court waiving immunity? PTAB in Covidien held: UFRF never initiated any federal court litigation involving the patent, so no waiver of immunity. PTAB in NeoCord held: Maryland state law has not waived immunity. U Maryland never initiated any federal court litigation involving the patent. U Maryland s license agreement expressly reserved immunity: State Immunity and Limitations of Liability. No provision of this Agreement shall constitute or be construed as a limitation, abrogation, or waiver of any defense or limitation of liability available to the State of Maryland or its units (including without limitation USM and University), officials, or employees under Maryland or Federal law, including without limitation the defense of sovereign immunity or any other governmental immunity. 9

Does the PTAB Have the Last Word? Covidien did not appeal, so IPR2016-01274 is final. NeoCord still has time to appeal IPR2016-00208. BUT, there is a question whether an appeal is possible. 35 U.S.C. 314(d) says: The determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable. 35 U.S.C. 319 says: A party dissatisfied with the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under section 318(a) may appeal the decision pursuant to sections 141 through 144. PTAB s NeoCord decision is styled as a Termination and not a Final Written Decision Supreme Court s Cuozzo decision says 314(d) may not bar a constitutional question Contours of 314(d) appeal bar is at issue in pending en banc Federal Circuit case Wi-Fi One v. Broadcomm. 10

What about WTO TRIPS Agreement? Article 3 National Treatment 1. Each Member shall accord to the nationals of other Members treatment no less favourable than that it accords to its own nationals with regard to the protection of intellectual property, subject to the exceptions already provided in, respectively, the Paris Convention (1967), the Berne Convention (1971), the Rome Convention or the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits. 11

Business Implications Joint inventorship co-development Joint ownership joint research agreement University Spin Outs licensing vs. assignment Patent Aggregation 12