Intellectual Property

Here are four tips for improving your chances of convincing PTAB to grant a motion to amend your claims.

The PTAB recently published the first update to its 2019 study of AIA trials involving petitions challenging Orange Book-listed patents and biologic patents through June 2021. Highlights of these pharmaceutical patent challenge statistics include, e.g., the number of these petitions filed, the number of instituted trials, and the trial outcomes since fiscal year 2013.

See the guidelines on the procedural aspects of filing a motion to amend claims.

We look to those circumstances when a patent owner should think twice about amending, including when significant past damages exist, the current claims possess strong infringement reads and claim scope, petitioners are highly-motivated to fight and patent owner is cost sensitive.

Machine learning (ML), bioinformatics, artificial intelligence (AI), and other computational tools have become ubiquitous in the biotech and synthetic biology industries because such technology allows for rapid processing of a large amount of complex data to produce advancements in therapeutics and diagnostics. As the landscape becomes increasingly more competitive, it is important for companies, particularly in the aforementioned industries, to obtain patent protection for their AI-related technology.

After an inter partes review (“IPR”) is instituted, a patent owner has an opportunity to file a motion to amend the claims and thereby propose a reasonable number of substitute claims. Here we provide some instances where a motion to amend may be a favorable option for a patent owner to consider. 

The Federal Circuit recently found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) violates a patent owner’s procedural rights under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) when construing a disputed claim term by omitting an uncontested requirement in its construction.

In inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the PTAB will often uphold the validity of dependent claims despite finding the independent claim invalid.  Dependent claims recite additional limitations that must be separately accounted for in the prior art references in the Petitioner’s asserted grounds.

It is no question that Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) technologies have popped up in all aspects of society such as online shopping, music streaming, and social networking. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has even reported that patents which incorporate AI has increased from under 5% in 1980 to over 20% in 2018. Among those organizations that utilize AI is the USPTO itself.

Tasked with starting an innovation protection and patent development program at your company but do not know where to begin? This three part series describes the key components to a patent development program for any company, small or large.

On Monday, the Supreme Court denied TCL Communication’s certiorari petition, without comment, appealing the Federal Circuit’s ruling that the essentiality of a patent claim is a question for the jury rather than judges to resolve during claim construction.  The denial of cert by the Supreme Court cements the Federal Circuit ruling which made proving infringement of standard essential patents easier by allowing reliance on the standard to show such infringement. 

When faced with an instituted IPR, the Patent Owner should include all arguments it wishes to preserve for appeal in its Patent Owner Response (“POR”), including arguments that the Patent Owner believes are unlikely to succeed before the Board but may be attractive to the Federal Circuit.  Otherwise, the argument will be deemed waived and unavailable in any subsequent appeal.

On Monday, in a highly-anticipated decision, a fractured Supreme Court issued its opinion in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, striking a portion of the America Invents Act (AIA) as unconstitutional—but providing an effectively toothless remedy.

When confronted with instituted IPRs, Patent Owners should identify and exploit issues that the Petition glossed over and bring those to the attention of the Board.  This will highlight for the Board important issues that the Petition failed to sufficiently address and can lead to victory for the Patent Owner. 

Amid the continuing threat to U.S. intellectual property rights posed by foreign actors, the International Trade Commission (ITC) is poised to become the latest federal agency to bolster protections for U.S. IP owners. The ITC’s broad power to exclude the importation into the U.S. of products that infringe American intellectual property now has the potential to be made even more robust through a new bill introduced by Senators John Cornyn (R-Tex.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), and Todd Young (R-Ind.) on June 15, 2021, that would provide expedited relief for trade secret theft victims.

On June 11, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) administrative order against 1-800 Contacts, Inc. The Second Circuit found that the online retailer’s trademark settlements with competitor online contact lens sellers were not “inherently suspect” and, instead, should be evaluated under the traditional rule of reason analysis. The trademark settlements specified, among other things, that 1-800 Contacts’ competitors would not bid on the company’s name as a keyword in online search advertising. This ruling has significant implications for the “inherently suspect” standard—according to the Second Circuit, “courts do not have sufficient experience with this type of conduct to permit [the FTC’s] abbreviated analysis.”

The Bayh Dole Act was enacted to provide incentives to promote commercialization of federally funded inventions and was designed to capitalize on the significant government investments in small business, university research, and other non-profit institutions.

US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) institution denials for inter partes review (“IPR”) and other post-grant review petitions have steadily risen from 13 percent in 2012 to 44 percent in 2020. In 2020, the institution rate has fallen to 56%, down from 63% a year ago.

In our previous post we started talking about discovery procedures in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings under 37 CFR § 42.51 and, in particular, the scope and timing of seeking limited additional discovery under Rule 42.51(b)(2). We reviewed timing considerations and emphasized the importance of anticipating the need for additional discovery and, to the extent necessary, moving the Board as early as possible following Institution.