PharmaPatents Timely Insight on Emerging Legal Developments

Tag Archives: Hyatt

Supreme Court Affirms Hyatt, Confirms Availability Of New Evidence, De Novo Review In Section 145 Actions

Posted by Courtenay Brinckerhoff on Posted in Supreme Court Decisions

On April 18, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Kappos v. Hyatt, which raised questions regarding the ability to introduce new evidence and the applicable standard of review when a patent applicant challenges the USPTO’s refusal to grant a patent in a district court  proceeding under 35 USC § 145 (“Civil Action to Obtain a Patent”).  The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the en banc Federal Circuit, holding that “there are no evidentiary restrictions beyond those already imposed by the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” and that “when new evidence is presented on a disputed question of fact,” the district court must “make a de novo finding.” The Court agreed with the Federal Circuit that the district court may “consider whether the applicant had an opportunity to present the evidence to the PTO” when deciding how much weight the new evidence should be given. This decision will be welcomed by patent applicants who have received negative USPTO decisions on patentability, and reflects the realities — and difficulties — of marshalling evidence during patent prosecution.Continue reading this entry

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In Section 145 Case (Kappos v. Hyatt)

Posted by Courtenay Brinckerhoff on Posted in Supreme Court Decisions

On January 9, 2012, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Kappos v. Hyatt. The issues before the Court relate to the scope of new evidence that a patent applicant can introduce against the USPTO in a district court action under 35 USC § 145 (“Civil Action to Obtain a Patent”) and the degree of deference the reviewing court must give to the USPTO’s decision not to grant a patent. Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Affirms District Court De Novo Review In Section 146 Action

Posted by Courtenay Brinckerhoff on Posted in Federal Circuit Decisions

In Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit confirmed that a district court is to undertake de novo review when new evidence is introduced in an interference action under 35 USC § 146.

Continue reading this entry

Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Hyatt v. Kappos Section 145 Case

Posted by Courtenay Brinckerhoff on Posted in Supreme Court Decisions

On June 27, 2011, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Hyatt v. Kappos. This means that the Court will review the en banc Federal Circuit decision which held that there are virtually no limits on the new evidence that a patent applicant can introduce in a district court action under 35 USC § 145 (“Civil Action to Obtain a Patent”).

I wrote about Hyatt’s appeal and the Federal Circuit panel decision last July, and about the Federal Circuit en banc decision last November. Here, I briefly summarize the issues presented to the Supreme Court.

The Questions Presented for Certiorari

The Acting Solicitor General filed a petition for certiorari on behalf of the USPTO. The petition raised two questions:

  1. Whether the plaintiff in a Section 145 action may introduce new evidence that could have been presented to the agency in the first instance.
  2. Whether, when new evidence is introduced under Section 145, the district court may decide de novo the factual questions to which the evidence pertains, without giving deference to the prior decision of the PTO.

On the first issue, the majority opinion of the Federal Circuit en banc decision held that “35 USC § 145 imposes no limitation on an applicant’s right to introduce new evidence before the district court.”

On the second issue, the majority opinion of the Federal Circuit en banc decision held that “the district court . . . must make de novo fact findings with respect to factual issues to which the new evidence relates.” On the other hand, the court stated that, for issues for which the applicant does not introduce new evidence, “the court reviews the case on the same record presented to the agency and . . . must apply the APA’s substantial evidence standard to Patent Office fact finding.

Judge Newman filed a separate opinion in which she agreed with the majority on the first issue, but not the second issue. She believes that § 145 provides for de novo review on all issues, regardless of whether new evidence is introduced.

Judge Dyk filed a 37-page dissenting opinion which was joined by Judge Gajarsa. Judge Dyk characterized the majority decision as “a remarkable departure from settled principles of administrative law,” and would have adopted a standard based on the Administrative Procedures Act and limited new evidence in § 145 actions “to evidence, such as live testimony, that could not be presented to the PTO in the first instance.”

How Will The Supreme Court Decide?

Although the Supreme Court has granted certiorari and affirmed patent cases, that outcome is still the exception rather than the rule. While I understand Judge Dyk’s concerns from an administrative law perspective, I hope Hyatt—and amici—explain the realities of patent prosecution that make the ability to present new evidence in a district court proceeding such an important aspect of the right to judicial review.

Federal Circuit Keeps Door Open for New Evidence in Section 145 Actions

Posted by Courtenay Brinckerhoff on Posted in Federal Circuit Decisions

On Monday, November 8, 2010, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in the en banc re-hearing of Hyatt v. Kappos. The en banc court departed from the August 11, 2009 panel decision, and held that there are virtually no limits on the new evidence that a patent applicant can introduce against the USPTO in a district court action under 35 USC § 145 (“Civil Action to Obtain a Patent”). This decision will be welcomed by patent applicants who have received negative USPTO decisions on patentability, and reflects the realities—and difficulties—of marshaling evidence during patent prosecution.

Continue reading this entry