Law Commons^™

Patently Inconsistent: State And Tribal Sovereign Immunity In Inter Partes Review, John Mixon

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note is composed of four parts. Part I reviews the origins, development, and purpose of both tribal and state sovereign immunity, compares the two doctrines, and concludes that the two are functionally the same despite deriving from different historical roots. Part II provides an overview of the history and purpose behind the patent system, the America Invents Act, and IPRs. Part II also analyzes the constitutionality of IPRs, as decided by the Supreme Court in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC. Part III introduces and addresses the five IPR decisions on state sovereign …

Disguised Patent Policymaking, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Faculty Scholarship

Patent Office power has grown immensely in this decade, and the agency is wielding its power in predictably troubling ways. Like other agencies, it injects politics into its decisions while relying on technocratic justifications. It also reads grants of authority expansively to aggrandize its power, especially to the detriment of judicial checks on agency action. However, this story of Patent Office ascendancy differs from that of other agencies in two important respects. One is that the U.S. patent system still remains primarily a means for allocating property rights, not a comprehensive regime of industrial regulation. Thus, the Patent Office cannot …

Biotechnology Patent Law Top Ten Of 2018 Broad Wins, Sovereignty Loses, And Patent Dance, Kevin E. Noonan, Andrew W. Torrance

Akron Law Review

In this article, we discuss what we consider to be the ten important and influential biotechnology patent law judicial decisions of 2018. These hinged on a variety of patent doctrines. An abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) for the multiple sclerosis drug Ampyra set the stage for the Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) decision, in which the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) provided guidance on how to conduct an obviousness analysis (35 U.S.C. §103). The Berkheimer v. HP Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) decision, although addressing a software invention, provided valuable insight into …

Renewed Efficiency In Administrative Patent Revocation, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Faculty Scholarship

Administrative patent revocation in the U.S. is poised to enter a new period of efficiency, though ironically it will be an efficiency that the America Invents Act originally put in place. The Court’s recent approval of the constitutionality of Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") proceedings was blunted by the Court’s accompanying rejection of partial institution. This Patent Office practice of accepting and denying validity review petitions piecemeal had been a key part of the agency’s procedural structure from the start. As a result, the Court’s decision in SAS Institute v. Iancu to require a binary choice — either fully …

The Mixed Case For A Ptab Off-Ramp, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay begins from the emerging agenda in the political branches for reforming various aspects of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and focuses on a particular reform: the creation of a PTAB off-ramp whereby a patent being challenged in an administrative revocation proceeding could be removed into a system primarily aimed at amending its claims and preserving its validity. To put the proposal into perspective, the Essay presents specific empirical trends, largely unexplored until now, that implicate patent reliance interests to which the PTAB has done injury. Ultimately, because the benefits and costs from a PTAB off-ramp are …

That Is Northern Lights Cannabis Indica . . . No, It's Marijuana: Navigating Through The Haze Of Cannabis And Patents, Dawson Hahn

Concordia Law Review

By their very nature, patents are exclusionary. A patent grants the right to exclude others from making use of an invention or process. But patents are also tools to promote innovation. However, when an invalid patent is granted, the patent becomes an exclusionary tool that also chills innovation. Invalid cannabis patents may be chilling innovation in the cannabis market, but they may not be the only thing. While the Controlled Substances Act continues to prohibit cannabis at a federal level, researchers and medical professionals will be unsure of the legality of their actions. This naturally leads to another chilling effect …

A Few Words And A Brief Recap Of The Jptrca’S Journey, David R. Irvin

Journal of the Patent and Trademark Resource Center Association

The Journal of the Patent and Trademark Resource Center has transitioned to TigerPrints at Clemson University. Here we offer some insight about why the Publications Committee recommended the move.

Petitioner Estoppel From Patent Trial And Appeal Board Proceedings After Sas Institute Inc. V. Iancu, Jennifer Esch, Paula Miller, Stacy Lewis, Tom Irving

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Patent Citation Analysis And Patent Damages, Dr. Peter A. Malaspina

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

All Or Nothing: Why The Supreme Court Sas Mandate Does Not Eliminate The Shaw Safe Harbor, Matt Johnson, Michael Lavine, Daniel Kazhdan Ph.D, Lisa Furby, David Anderson

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

The Non-Doctrine Of Redundancy, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Faculty Scholarship

This Article explores and evaluates a controversial practice that the Patent Office undertook beginning early in the post-AIA regime, the practice of denying otherwise meritorious requests for review because of what the Office termed "redundant" grounds. The controversy over redundancy-based rejections had several sources. One was that making such rejections required the Patent Office to decide petitions piecemeal—and, indeed, the agency claimed that power for itself—even though it was not clear that this power lay within the statute. Another source was that the Patent Office persistently declined to explain what, in the agency's view, did or did not constitute redundancy. …

February 1, 2019 - Panel 2: Trademark Registration In The Uspto And Euipo – A Comparative, Practical Analysis, Golden Gate University School Of Law, Mccarthy Institute

McCarthy Institute

• Iza Junkar, Senior Associate, Hogan Lovells (moderator)
• Meryl Hershkowitz, Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Operations, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
• Barton Beebe, John M. Desmarais Professor of Intellectual Property Law, NYU School of Law
• Jeanne Fromer, Professor of Law, NYU School of Law
• Gordon Humphreys, Chairperson of the 5th Board, EUIPO Boards of Appeal
• Joao Negrao, Director, International Cooperation and Legal Affairs, EUIPO
• Joseph Ferretti, Vice President and Chief Counsel, Global Trademarks, PepsiCo

Brief For The R Street Institute As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Charles Duan

Amicus Briefs

The government and its agencies should be treated as a “person” that may petition to institute post-issuance review proceedings under the America Invents Act, for two reasons. First, permitting the government to seek review of patents under these proceedings best realizes the intent of Congress to make those proceedings widely available. Second, compared to the government’s alternative option for administratively challenging patents, AIA post-issuance review better serves important norms of procedure and governance, including transparency, due process, and separation of functions.

Patenting The Unexplained, Sean B. Seymore

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

It is a bedrock principle of patent law that an inventor need not understand how or why an invention works. The patent statute simply requires that the inventor explain how to make and use the invention. But explaining how to make and use something without understanding how or why it works yields patents with uninformative disclosures. Their teaching function is limited; one who wants to understand or figure out the underlying scientific principles must turn elsewhere. This limited disclosure rule does not align with the norms of science and tends to make patent documents a less robust form of technical …

The Federal Circuit As An Institution, Ryan G. Vacca

Law Faculty Scholarship

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is a unique institution. Unlike other circuit courts, the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction is bound by subject area rather than geography, and it was created to address a unique set of problems specific to patent law. These characteristics have affected its institutional development and made the court one of the most frequently studied appellate courts. This chapter examines this development and describes the evolving qualities that have helped the Federal Circuit distinguish itself, for better or worse, as an institution.

This chapter begins with an overview of the concerns existing before creation of …

The Post-Alice Jurisprudence Pendulum And Its Effects On Patent Eligible Subject Matter, John Robert Sepúlveda

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Prior Art In Inter Partes Review, Stephen Yelderman

Journal Articles

This Essay is an empirical study of the evidence the Patent Trial and Appeal Board relies upon when cancelling patents in inter partes review. To construct our dataset, we collected every final written decision invalidating a patent claim over a twelve-month period. We coded individual invalidation events on a reference-by-reference, claim-by-claim basis. Drawing on this dataset, we report a number of details about the prior art supporting patent cancellation, including the frequency with which U.S. patents, foreign patents, and printed publications were cited, the frequency with which the invalidating prior art would have been amenable to a pre-filing prior art …

Automation And Predictive Analytics In Patent Prosecution: Uspto Implications And Policy, Tabrez Y. Ebrahim

Faculty Scholarship

Artificial-intelligence technological advancements bring automation and predictive analytics into patent prosecution. The information asymmetry between inventors and patent examiners is expanded by artificial intelligence, which transforms the inventor-examiner interaction to machine-human interactions. In response to automated patent drafting, automated office-action responses, "cloems" (computer-generated word permutations) for defensive patenting, and machine-learning guidance (based on constantly updated patent-prosecution big data), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) should reevaluate patent-examination policy from economic, fairness, time, and transparency perspectives. By conceptualizing the inventor-examiner relationship as a "patenting market," economic principles suggest stronger efficiencies if both inventors and the USPTO have better information …