Patent Law Practice Center

Post Grant Dead Zone Coming Soon

Written by Scott McKeown, Partner at Oblon Spivak, Practice Center Contributor and author of Patents Post Grant blog.

PGR Window Anomaly to Encourage Early Litigation?

Post Grant Review (PGR) is limited to patents maturing from applications filed on or after March 16, 2013 (note, the exception for business method patents, Sec. 18 of the AIA).  Of course, it will take several years for such patents to issue from the USPTO. Thus, practically speaking, PGR will not be an option for third parties seeking to challenge the validity of an issued patent until at least the second half of this decade. Nevertheless, the PGR statutes will have a significant impact on third party options and parallel litigation strategy going forward.

As a reminder, patents eligible for PGR that are not business method patents, are those that are within 9 months of issuance, or re-issuance for broadening reissues (§ 321 (c)).

When fashioning the Inter Partes Review (IPR) statutes, Congress mandated that IPR may not be requested until the later of 9 months from patent issuance, or if PGR is instituted the date of termination (§ 311(c)). This timing limit is meant to ensure that PGR and IPR are not conducted in parallel. IPR, unlike PGR,  becomes available for all patents next September 16, 2012. (more…)

How Long Will Inter Partes Review Really Take?

Written by Scott McKeown, Partner at Oblon Spivak, Practice Center Contributor and author of Patents Post Grant blog.

Practical Pendency of IPR to be 18-24 Months

In promulgating the new Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding as part of the America Invents Act (AIA) Congress hoped to address a major criticism of inter partes patent reexamination (IPX), namely, the significant length of time necessary to conclude these proceedings.

IPX first includes an examination phase handled by patent examiners of the Central Reexamination Unit. Once the examination phase concludes, an IPX may be appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). Thereafter, an IPX may be further appealed to the CAFC. This three-phase process cannot be navigated quickly. That is to say, IPXs fully contested through CAFC appeal remain pending some 6-8 years from the time of the initial request.

Pendency is an important factor for challengers considering alternatives for quickly resolving a patent dispute. Likewise courts will often cite to the significant delay of IPX as justification to deny a request to stay ongoing litigation proceedings pending a parallel IPX. (more…)

New Inter Partes Review Grounds To Stay Most Patent Litigation?

Written by Scott McKeown, Partner at Oblon Spivak and Practice Center Contributor.

Estoppel Provisions Disfavor Parallel Proceedings

During a  [recent] webinar on post grant USPTO proceedings, I compared the current estoppel provisions of inter partes patent reexamination to that ofInter Partes Review. The Inter PartesReview (IPR) estoppel provisions are similar in some respects to the currentinter partes patent reexamination (IPX) provisions, but differ in significant respects.

In some ways, the new estoppel provisions are designed to address shortcomings of the existing IPX estoppel provisions. For example, whileIPX estoppel does not apply to ITC proceedings, the IPR provisions extend estoppel to ITC proceedings. Additionally, while the IPX provisions use the terminology “raised or could have raised,” the new IPR provisions recite “raised or reasonably could have raised during Inter Partes Review.” Ostensibly, this language softening is designed to provide some slight wiggle room to account for the late found reference in a far away library of Siberia.

Of perhaps much greater interest however is the aspect of IPR estoppel that may compel judges to stay a parallel litigation pending IPR. (more…)

Senate Passes House Patent Reform Bill (H.R. 1249)-President Now Expected to Sign!

The United States Senate passed the America Invents Act on September 8, 2011 by a vote of 89-9.  The bill will now be forwarded on to the White House for President Obama’s signature, upon which the law is officially enacted. Our friends at Foley & Lardner sent in this article highlighting key changes to the U.S. patent system that will be brought about by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.

On September 8, 2011, by a vote of 89-9, the Senate approved the House version of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (H.R. 1249), leaving only President Obama’s signature as the final step to make patent reform a reality (he has already stated he is ready to sign this bill). Prior to the final vote, the Senate voted to reject or table all amendments, avoiding the need to send the bill back to the House for consideration. This vote means that the final text of the new law is that found in H.R. 1249 as passed by the House on June 23, 2011. Further information on the Act can be found at Foley.com/patentreform.

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act makes the most sweeping changes to U.S. patent law in many decades, including moving the U.S. towards a first-to-file system, expanding prior user rights as a defense to infringement, eliminating interference proceedings, and creating new USPTO proceedings for post-grant review. While many provisions of the law will not take effect for at least one year after the date of enactment, several key provisions have an immediate effect, and many provisions will have a retroactive effect after their phase-in. (See Foley’s PharmaPatentsBlog for a more detailed review of different effective dates). (more…)

Unwary Litigants to Lose USPTO Review Option Under Patent Reform