Date post: | 27-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | gabriel-butler |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Post-Grant ProceedingsUnder The America Invents
ActLos Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association “Washington in the West” Conference
January 29, 2013, Los Angeles, California
Panelists:Jeffrey Robertson – Administrative Patent JudgeBrent Babcock – Knobbe MartensMehrand Arjomand – Morrison Foerster
2
America Invents Act (AIA)
• Signed into law September 16, 2011
• General Themes (depending on whom you ask)
– “Harmonization”
– Simplify and reduce cost of patent litigation; alternative to patent litigation
– Reduce influence of non-practicing entities
– Varying effective dates
– Some uncertainty
• Technical Amendments (2013)
3
Changes to Post-Grant Disputes
Before AIA
• Inter Partes Reexam
• Ex Parte Reexam
• Interferences
After AIA
• Inter Partes Review
• Post-Grant Review
• Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents
• Derivation Proceedings
• Ex Parte Reexam
• Supplemental Examination
• Interferences (Legacy)
4
Post-Grant Proceedings-Where We Are Now• Current USPTO statistics as of January 24, 2013
– 114 IPR filings ; 3 instituted/ 0 denials
– 15 CBM filings; 2 instituted / 0 denials
• Number of Petitions by Technology
• Electrical/Computer 89
• Mechanical 6
• Chemical 19
• Bio/Pharma 9
• Design 1
5
Inter Partes Reexam v. Inter Partes Review• Two important differences between an inter
partes reexamination proceeding and an inter partes review proceeding:
– No examination
– Statutory deadline for final decision
Examination by CRUFiling Appeal to CAFC
Review by PTABFiling Appeal to CAFC
Appeal to PTAB
6
Post-Grant Proceedings – Procedure
• Threshold “Reasonable Likelihood” that petitioner willprevail on at least one claim
• Potentially more limited discovery in IPR than Post Grant Review
– Deposition of witnesses submitting affidavits (declarations)
– What is “otherwise necessary in the interests of justice”
• Patent owner may file response rebutting petition
• One motion by right to cancel or propose substitute claims
• Right to oral hearing
• Petitioner may submit supplemental information/ comment
8
Post-Grant Proceedings – Procedure
• Petitioner or Director may request joinder of additional parties
• Final determination within 12 months, up to 18 months if “good cause”
• Estoppel: “raised or reasonably could have raised”
• Appeal: directly to Federal Circuit
9
• Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices
http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/representative_orders_and_opinions.jsp
• Pro Hac Vice Requests
• Defective Petitions
• Relationship with Co-pending Proceedings
• Definition of Covered Business Method Patent
Post-Grant Proceedings – Developments
10
IPR Strategic Issues
• What is the anticipated fees/cost of an IPR?
• How long will an IPR last?
• Are the fees/costs spread out evenly?
• Why should I use IPR rather than traditional litigation?
• What is the likelihood that a district court action will be stayed during an IPR?
• Should I change my practices of monitoring competitors’ IP?
• Is there anything I can do to prevent an IPR of my client’s patents?
11
Advantages of IPR vs. Litigation
• Lower Burden of Proof (preponderance of the evidence)
• Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of patent claims
• Lower Cost (FRCP do not apply)
– Limited discovery
– Professionalism strictly enforced
– Fewer “ancillary” battles (venue, jurisdiction, discovery, etc.)
• Quicker (1-2 years)
• Better informed decision maker (both technical & legal)
12
Advantages of Litigation vs. IPR
• Infringement can be adjudicated
• Full scope of claims and defenses
• Full discovery opportunities
• Estoppel effect of USPTO Inter Partes proceedings
• More expensive to opponent
• Jury presents potentially more risk to opponent