Posts Tagged ‘AIA’

Patent Due Diligence and Evaluation After the AIA

Monday, July 18th, 2016

Many factors must be considered for due diligence and valuation of a patent portfolio. The patent owner’s desire to have broad claims that capture a large number of infringements must be tempered against its need for claims that will not be deemed invalid in view of prior art.

Before the America Invents Act (AIA), patents were crafted to survive federal court scrutiny.  An assertion of broad claims was more likely than sweating the details about validity because it was harder to prove a patent was invalid than it was to prove it was infringed.

With the enactment of the AIA, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) is empowered to review patent validity in administrative trials (AIA Trials). Patents are more readily invalidated in these AIA Trials using a lower burden of proof than required in federal district court. Furthermore, the Board’s administrative patent law judges have both scientific and patent law training, which enables them to scrutinize patents more carefully than a typical district court judge or jury.

The “new normal” is that a patent’s validity is likely tested in the PTAB (in IPR, CBM, or PGR) before it is enforced in federal district court. Savvy companies are taking extra measures to review their patents carefully before acquiring and asserting them to reduce or avoid the cost and delay that comes with PTAB proceedings.

WHAT ARE THE DOWNSIDES FOR PATENTS THAT ARE NOT AIA-READY?

  • RISK: AIA Trials statistically favor the Petitioner/Defendant. Don’t invest in a portfolio or a litigation that won’t deliver value.
  • DELAY: Patent Office Trials are one more reason for a stay of parallel federal district court proceedings. Justice delayed is justice denied.
  • COST: Patent owners dragged into an IPR, PGR or CBM can expect six figure defense costs with the best-case outcome being that the claims are upheld—which is essentially the patent’s original status.
  • CLAIM CORRECTION UNLIKELY: Amendments are
    rarely allowed in IPRs, CBMs, and PGRs. Don’t expect to fix defective patents without a lengthy proceeding that is conducted after the AIA Trial.
  • HARM TO FUTURE ACTIONS: If claims survive the AIA Trial validity challenge, admissions may be made that could reduce the effectiveness of any district court infringement action.

Poorly crafted patent claims are typically cancelled in an AIA Patent Trial. High quality patents are more likely to bypass review, and those patent owners avoid the cost, delay, and risk of defending weak claims in AIA Trials.

To get a good read of a patent’s ability to survive AIA review, seek the opinion of patent counsel that is experienced in patent prosecution, patent litigation, and post-grant proceedings.

In case you missed it, I put together a simple 2 minute video with 4 tips to make your patent portfolio AIA-ready.

4 Tips to Make Your Patent Portfolio AIA-Ready

Wednesday, July 13th, 2016

The America Invents Act (AIA) has changed the way that patents are enforced. In traditional patent litigation, a patent was drafted to perform in district court. After the AIA, when patents are asserted, they are first challenged in administrative proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). These proceedings, called IPRs (inter partes reviews), PGRs (post-grant reviews), and CBMs (covered business method reviews), are conducted by skilled administrative law judges who have both scientific and legal experience. Patents that fail in these more-stringent reviews will never get a day in court, so patent applicants should be adapting their patent strategies to make their patents AIA-ready.

Check out our video for tips on how to make stronger patents that will withstand AIA reviews.

Federal Circuit Interprets Board’s Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard – Part II

Thursday, June 18th, 2015

In Microsoft Corp. v. ProxyConn, Inc. v. Michelle K. Lee, Intervenor (Fed. Cir. cases 2014-1542 and -1543), the Federal Circuit reversed claim constructions made by the Board in the underlying IPRs.  One of the claim constructions that was reversed related to the interpretation of components of a packet-switched network.  In particular, the claims recite a gateway that is “connected to the packet-switched network in such a way that network packets sent between at least two other computers pass through [the gateway],” as stated in claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,717:

6. A system for data access in a packet-switched network, comprising:

a gateway including an operating unit, a memory and a processor connected to said packet-switched network in such a way that network packets sent between at least two other computers pass through it;

a caching computer connected to said gateway through a fast local network, wherein said caching computer includes an operating unit, a first memory, a permanent storage memory and a processor;

said caching computer further including a network cache memory in its permanent storage memory, means for a digital digest and means for comparison between a digital digest on data in its network cache memory and a digital digest received from said packet-switched network through said gateway.

The Federal Circuit referenced Figure 11 of the patent to show one embodiment where the caching computer is connected to the gateway, and the gateway is connected to receiver and sender computers:

FIG 11

The interpretive issue is whether the “two other computers,” could be any two computers, including the caching computer recited in claim 6 immediately after the gateway.  This interpretation is important because the asserted prior art arguably included a gateway connected to at least one other computer and the caching computer, but not a gateway connected to receiver and sender computers and a caching computer.  Microsoft argued for the broader interpretation, which included the caching computer as potentially one of the two connected computers.  But ProxyConn argued for the narrower interpretation that the “two other computers” referred only to the sender and receiver computers.  The Board adopted the  broader interpretation, and decided the prior art rendered such claims unpatentable.

The Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s construction, first by analyzing the claim language:

The Board erred in concluding that the “two other computers” could include the caching computer.  Beginning with the language of the claims, claim 6 recites a system comprising a gateway, a caching computer, and “two other computers.”  ’717 patent col. 10 l. 54–col. 11 l. 12. Not only are the “two other computers” recited independently from, and in addition to, the gateway and caching computers, the word “other” denotes a further level of distinction between those two computers and the specific gateway and caching computers recited separately in the claim.

Then the Federal Circuit turned to the specification:

The specification confirms that the phrase “two other computers” is limited to the sender/receiver and computer/receiver.  Other than in claim 6 itself, the phrase “two other computers” is used three times in the specification, each time as part of the embodiment containing the gateway and caching computer intermediaries.  [cites omitted]  And in each instance where it is used, the phrase “two other computers” describes components that are separate and distinct from the gateway and the caching computer.  [ ]

For example, the specification states: “Gateway 60 is connected to a wide-area packet-switched network in such a way that network packets sent between at least two other computers 42 and 46 pass through the gateway 60.  The caching computer 62 uses a part of its permanent storage memory for network cache memory 66.”  [cites omitted] (emphases added).  As shown in referenced Figure 11, the “two other computers 42 and 46” in this passage are the sender/computer and receiver/computer, respectively.  Read together with labeled Figure 11, this portion of the specification makes clear that the gateway, the caching computer, and the “two other computers” are each separate and distinct components of the overall system.  The Board’s construction, which expands the “two other computers 42 and 46” to include the separately identified caching computer, is unreasonably broad in light of the language of the claims and specification.

The Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s findings of unpatentability of claims 6, 7, and 9, and remanded “for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Some takeaways from this portion of the appellate decision are:

  • The Federal Circuit supports the PTO’s adoption of the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard for IPRs, consistent with Cuozzo.
  • It will actively provide guidance on what constitutes a proper BRI for IPRs.
  • A BRI determination may be guided by analysis of the claim language and the patent specification, including the drawings.

We will explore more about the claim constructions and decision on the Patent Owner’s motion to amend in future posts.

USPTO to Host AIA Second Anniversary Forum on Sept. 16

Monday, September 9th, 2013

The USPTO will host an AIA Second Anniversary Forum on September 16, 2013, at the USPTO’s Alexandria campus in the Madison Auditorium from 1 to 5 pm, and also via webcast.  Here is the USPTO announcement:

At the Forum, USPTO subject matter experts from the Patents Business Unit and administrative patent judges from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) will discuss many AIA provisions, including current filing statistics and “do’s and don’ts” as follows:

–Patent Panel: prioritized examination (aka Track One), preissuance submissions, inventor’s oath/declaration, supplemental examination, and micro-entity discount

–First-inventor-to-file Workshop: demonstration of examiner hands-on training using a mock application for examination

–PTAB Panel Discussion: inter partes review and covered business method review

Attendees will have the opportunity to ask questions during each segment.

Webcast Access Info:

Event number: 991 788 621

Event password: 123456

Event address for attendees: uspto-events.webex.com/uspto-events/onstage/g.php?d=991788621&t=a

——————————————————-

Teleconference information

——————————————————-

Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-479-3208

Access code: 991 788 621

PTO, PTAB and AIA History in the Making Today, September 16, 2012

Sunday, September 16th, 2012

Today the PTO received its first petitions for inter partes review (IPR) and covered business method patent review (CBM) pursuant to the America Invents Act (AIA).  We are in a kind of second phase of implementation of the AIA that phases out inter partes reexamination and that makes IPR and CBM post-issuance reviews available for patents that qualify.  A series of posts will follow that better lay out the considerations for using these third party challenges to patents.

The first phase of AIA implementation was in the enactment of the AIA last year, which changed the standards for inter partes reexamination and phaseout of inter partes reexamination.  The third phase of AIA implementation occurs when Post-Grant Review (PGR) becomes a viable review tool.  But PGR is designed to review patents granting from applications filed in the new First Inventor to File (FITF) system.  That means PGR will become useful for patents issuing from patent applications that are filed on or after March 16, 2013.  Thus, the third phase of implementation involving PGR may kick off on March 16, 2013, but PGR will be on the sidelines until a patent grants from an FITF application and is challenged using PGR.

There are so many things to write about this new world of patent review it is hard to know where to begin.  Today I feel it is appropriate to recognize the amazing achievements by PTO Director Kappos and his Office in rapidly implementing this portion of the AIA.  An amazing coordination of work was needed to come up with proposed and final rules, to address many questions and comments, and to provide critical information dissemination and training.  I feel that the quality of attention to detail, listening, and helpful communications by the Office have never been higher in my almost-20 years of patent practice.

Of course, the true test will occur when these trials are conducted in the PTAB, and we can see firsthand the quality of decisions.  Regardless of whether you are a critic or supporter of the AIA, you have to give the PTO an “A” for effort, attention to detail, communications, and timeliness for launching IPR and CBM in this phase of AIA implementation.