Law Commons^™

Meeting The Challenges To America's Economic Future: Charting The Course In U.S. Intellectual Property & Innovation Policy, With An Introduction By Megan M. La Belle, International Ip Commercialization Council

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Standing To Appeal At The Federal Circuit: Appellants, Appellees, And Intervenors, Matthew J. Dowd, Jonathan Stroud

Catholic University Law Review

The America Invents Act of 2011 created three administrative patent review regimes that have flooded the rechristened Patent Trial and Appeal Board with almost 7,000 new matters in just under five years. The flood of matters—primarily, inter partes reviews (IPRs)—has led to more than 1,000 appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit from administrative proceedings, eclipsing any other forum of origin. With the flood of administrative appeals, questions of first instance on appellate standing have arisen, resulting in a handful of important panel decisions.

While the other regional Courts of Appeals have largely adopted legal tests, standards, …

The Porous Court-Agency Border In Patent Law, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Faculty Scholarship

The progression toward reevaluating patent validity in the administrative, rather than judicial, setting became overtly substitutionary in the America Invents Act. No longer content to encourage court litigants to rely on Patent Office expertise for faster, cheaper, and more accurate validity decisions, Congress in the AIA took steps to force a choice. The result is an emergent border between court and agency power in the U.S. patent system. By design, the border is not absolute. Concurrent activity in both settings over the same dispute remains possible. What is troubling is the systematic weakening of this border by Patent Office encroachments …

When Can The Patent Office Intervene In Its Own Cases?, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Faculty Scholarship

The rise of administrative patent validity review since the America Invents Act has rested on an enormous expansion of Patent Office authority. A relatively little-known aspect of that authority is the agency's statutory ability to intervene in Federal Circuit appeals from adversarial proceedings in its own Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Patent Office has exercised this intervenor authority frequently and with specific apparent policy objectives, including where one of the adverse parties did not participate in the appeal. Moreover, until recently, there has been no constitutional inquiry into the Article III standing that the Patent Office must establish in …

Precedential Decisions At The Ptab: An Endangered Species?, Robert M. Yeh Ph.D

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

This Article describes the USPTO’s practice of designating certain opinions as precedential, informative, or representative and compares it to the practice of issuing precedential opinions at other agencies that conduct quasi-judicial proceedings. The Article explores the impact of these agency practices on stare decisis. It concludes that the USPTO should simplify its designation process, increase the number of precedential opinions, and by doing so improve consistency and predictability.

Ptab Precedential Decision: Putting The Hammer Down On Filing Serial Petitions?, Ashley N. Klein, Warren J. Thomas

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

Petitioners for inter partes review proceedings under the America Invents Act routinely file serial petitions to challenge a single patent. Patent owners have criticized such “follow-on” petitions as abusive. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s recent precedential opinion in General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017), lays out seven non-exhaustive factors to guide the Board’s consideration of such “follow-on” petitions. This Article summarizes the Board’s analysis of follow-on petitions prior to General Plastic, examines how General Plastic has affected petitioners’ success in having such petitions instituted, and suggests strategies for practitioners …

Are There Really Two Sides Of The Claim Construction Coin? The Application Of The Broadest Reasonable Interpretation At The Ptab, Paula Miller, Marianne Terrot, Stacy Lewis, Tom Irving

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

The USPTO has applied the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) claim construction standard during prosecution, reexamination, and other office proceedings for decades. The Supreme Court affirmed in Cuozzo Speed Technologies Inc. that BRI is also the appropriate standard for unexpired claims in post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Leading up to Cuozzo, many parties speculated that the PTAB’s application of BRI might create confusion and result in inconsistent outcomes at the district court level. Notably, nothing in the America Invents Act establishes a standard of deference between PTAB and district court decisions. But so far, there has …

To Stay Or Not To Stay Pending Ipr? That Should Be A Simpler Question, Joel Sayres, Julie Wahlstrand

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Without Clear Rules, Ptab Practices May Run Afoul Of The Apa, Arpita Bhattacharyya, Rachel L. Emsley

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Master Of The Petition: Exploring The Tension Between The Ptab And Petitioners In Controlling The Scope Of Aia Trials, Raja N. Saliba, Grant Shackelford

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Yes, The Ptab Is Unconstitutional, Gregory Dolin, Md

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

The Proper Appellate Standard Of Review For Ptab Factual Findings Made Incidental To Claim Construction, A. David Brzozowski Ii

Catholic University Law Review

The America Invents Act (AIA) represents the most significant change to U.S. patent law since the 1952 Patent Act. Since its passage, the AIA has drawn wide support from the intellectual property community, primarily due to the new post-grant opposition proceedings the Act created.

However, certain aspects of the new system created by the AIA are controversial. Specifically, judges and practitioners alike debate which standard of review courts should apply to the factual findings made by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) during these opposition proceedings. While the Federal Circuit has reviewed all factual findings made at the Patent …

The Problem With Ptab's Power Over Section 101, Kristen Osenga

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Remedies And Procedure: Patent Law's Continuing Frontiers, John M. Golden

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Determinants Of Patent Quality: Evidence From Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Brian Love, Shawn P. Miller, Shawn Ambwani

Faculty Publications

We study the determinants of patent “quality”—the likelihood that an issued patent can survive a post-grant validity challenge. We do so by taking advantage of two recent developments in the U.S. patent system. First, rather than relying on the relatively small and highly-selected set of patents scrutinized by courts, we study instead the larger and broader set of patents that have been subjected to inter partes review, a recently established administrative procedure for challenging the validity of issued patents. Second, in addition to characteristics observable on the face of challenged patents, we utilize datasets recently made available by the USPTO …

2017 Patent Law Decisions Of The Federal Circuit, Laura C. Whitworth

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Amending Patent Claims, Gregory Reilly

All Faculty Scholarship

Patent claims traditionally have been freely amendable to overcome a finding of unpatentability. For that reason, the Patent Office’s restrictive approach to amendments in new post-issuance review proceedings created by the America Invents Act provoked strident criticism; generated administrative, statutory, and constitutional challenges; and fractured the Federal Circuit. This Article supplies the comprehensive evaluation of the costs and benefits of patent claimamendments, both in examination and post-issuance, surprisingly missing in the literature.The results are mixed. Amendments in initial examination are less clearly warranted than commonly thought, with the costs – primarily problematic drafting incentives – often overlooked and the benefits …

The Problem With Ptab's Power Over Section 101, Kristen Osenga

Law Faculty Publications

The doctrine of patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a “real mess.” Other apt terms to describe this doctrine, and the jurisprudence surrounding it, include “chaos” and “crisis.” Few question whether patent eligible subject matter is a problem; however, many do not realize how high the stakes are and how dire the consequences. The erosion of patent protection, in part due to the “chaos,” impacts the willingness of companies to invest in innovation. This is especially true in today’s most important technologies where innovations occur in the spaces most likely to be flagged as ineligible subject …