PharmaPatents Timely Insight on Emerging Legal Developments

Category Archives: Patent Trials

USPTO Rules Eliminate Inter Partes Review Dead Zone

Posted in Patent Reform; Patent Trials; USPTO Proposed Rule Changes

On March 25, 2013, the USPTO published final rule changes to “Implement the Technical Corrections to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act as to Inter Partes Review.” The rule changes have an effective date of March 25, 2013, and relate to statutory changes with an effective date of January 14, 2013.

The Dead Zone

The AIA created two new procedures for challenging a patent within the USPTO: Post Grant Review and Inter Partes Review. As enacted, Post Grant Review only can be requested within the first nine months after a patent grants, and Inter Partes Review only could be requested thereafter. However, Post Grant Review only is available for patents examined under the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA (which only apply to certain applications filed on or after March 16, 2013). This created a “dead zone” for patents that are not subject to Post Grant Review, because they could not be challenged within the USPTO within the first nine months after grant or reissue.

The AIA Technical Corrections Act

The AIA Technical Corrections Act stemmed from HR 6621, and eliminated the Inter Partes Review dead zone by providing that the nine month time period restriction does not apply to patents that are were not examined under the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA. Thus, under the AIA Technical Corrections Act, an Inter Partes Review proceeding to challenge a “first-to-invent” patent or reissue can be brought anytime once the patent or reissue is issued.

By the terms of the AIA Technical Corrections Act, these statutory changes took effect on January 14, 2013 (the date of enactment) and apply to proceedings commenced on or after that date.

The USPTO Rule Change

To implement these statutory changes, the USPTO has amended 37 CFR § 42.102(a) to read as follows:

(a) A petition for inter partes review of a patent must be filed after the later of the following dates, where applicable:
(1) If the patent is a patent described in section 3(n)(1) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, the date that is nine months after the date of the grant of the patent;
(2) If the patent is a patent that is not described in section 3(n)(1) of the Leahy-Smith American Invents Act, the date of the grant of the patent; or
(3) If a post-grant review is instituted as set forth in subpart C of this part, the date of the termination of such post-grant review.

A “patent that is not described in section 3(n)(1) of the Leahy-Smith American Invents Act,” is a patent that was not examined under the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA, the applicability of which is set forth in section 3(n)(1) of the AIA. Using the short-hand used in the Federal Register Notice, a “patent that is not described in section 3(n)(1) of the Leahy-Smith American Invents Act,” is a “first-to-invent” patent.

No Notice And Comment Period

As noted above, the USPTO published the final rule changes on March 25, 2013 and the rule changes have an effective date of March 25, 2013. The USPTO explained why this rule change was not subject to a notice and comment period:

Good cause exists to make these procedural changes without prior notice and opportunity for comment and to be effective immediately so as to avoid inconsistencies between regulations and the AIA Technical Corrections Act.

An Important Correction

This correction could be important to patents that may be involved in litigation, because the Inter Partes Review statute requires that a petition for Inter Partes Review be brought within one year after the petitioner has been served with a complaint alleging infringement. Without the correction, an accused infringer would have to wait until nine months after grant to petition for Inter Partes Review, even if  the one year clock was running.

USPTO Board Holds That Complaint Dismissed Without Prejudice Does Not Bar Inter Partes Review

Posted in Patent Trials

In a decision granting (in part) a Request for Inter Partes Review, the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) held that an infringement complaint that was dismissed without prejudice did not bar the Request for Inter Partes Review.

The Statute At Issue

The Inter Partes Review statute includes a limitations period measured from service of an infringement complaint against the petitioner. In particular, 35 USC § 315(b) provides:

An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than one year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.

The Procedural Background

In the case at issue, the Patent Owner (BOS GmbH & KG) had filed a complaint against the Taiwanese parent (Macauto Industrial Co., Ltd.) of the Petitioner (Macauto U.S.A.) in April of 2011, which was more than one year before the Request for Inter Partes Review was filed. According to the PTAB decision, the Taiwanese parent moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the action eventually was dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation.

(BOS filed another infringement action against the Petitioner and a related Chinese entity (Kunshan Macauto) on May 30, 2012, which was less than one year before the Request for Inter Partes Review was filed.)

The PTAB Analysis

The PTAB interpreted 35 USC § 315(b) as requiring that “the service date of the complaint be more than a year before the petition was filed,” and turned to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to interpret and apply the service requirement.

[T]he infringement suit against Macauto Taiwan was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a), pursuant to a joint stipulation. …. The Federal Circuit has consistently interpreted the effect of such dismissals as leaving the parties as though the action had never been brought. …. Accordingly, the dismissal of the earlier action against Macauto Taiwan nullifies the effect of the alleged service of the complaint on Petitioner.

The PTAB therefore concluded that there was no effective service date of the prior complaint on Petitioner, and so 35 USC § 315(b) did not bar the Request for Inter Partes Review.  (Because there was no effective service date, the PTAB did not decide whether service on the Taiwanese parent would have barred the Request by the U.S. Petitioner.)

Who Can Appear In Patent Trials Before The USPTO Patent Trial And Appeal Board?

Posted in Patent Trials; USPTO Board Decisions

Now that new patent trials are being conducted at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), questions are arising as to who can best represent the parties in such proceedings. Should  it be patent attorneys, who have  experience with Patent Office practice, or should it be litigators, who may have more experience taking depositions of opposing witnesses? The USPTO rules governing practice before the PTAB require designation of “lead counsel” who must be a “registered practitioner” (e.g., a patent attorney or patent agent registered to practice before the USPTO). But, 37 CFR § 42.10(c) permits appearance by a non-patent attorney with a showing that the attorney “is an experienced litigating attorney and has an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.” A recent Board opinion outlines the requirements for such a motion to appear pro hac vice in an Inter Partes Review proceeding.

The Board’s Requirements

The Board opinion indicates that a motion to appear pro hac vice in an Inter Partes Review proceeding should be filed no sooner than twenty one (21) days after service of the petition to institute the proceeding. Any opposition must be filed no later than one week after the filing of the underlying motion, and no reply shall be filed unless authorized by the Board.

The Board opinion indicates that a motion must be supported by a statement of facts and an affidavit or declaration by the individual seeking to appear. The statement of facts must show good cause for the Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice during the proceeding. The affidavit or declaration must attest to the following:

  • Membership in good standing of the Bar of at least one State or the District of Columbia
  • No suspensions or disbarments from practice before any court or administrative body
  • No application for admission to practice before any court or administrative body ever denied
  • No sanctions or contempt citations imposed by any court or administrative body
  • The individual seeking to appear has read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide and the Board’s Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in part 42 of the C.F.R.
  • The individual will be subject to the USPTO Code of Professional Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 10.20 et seq. and disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a)
  • All other proceedings before the Office for which the individual has applied to appear pro hac vice in the last three (3) years
  • Familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding.

If  the individual is unable to provide any of this  information or unable to make any of the required statements or representations under oath, the individual should provide a full explanation of the circumstances as part of the affidavit or declaration.

A Team Approach 

The PTAB rules may promote a team approach to representation, where both patent attorneys and litigators represent both parties. (Of course, some attorneys are both registered patent attorneys and litigators.) Such an approach may not only serve the interests of the parties, but also may make it easier for the Board to ensure that the proceedings are completed within the statutory deadlines.