Virnetx Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 2019-1671 (Fed. Cir., May 13, 2020).

Inter partes reexamination was a non-trial procedure that allowed third parties to participate in patent reexamination, and has now been replaced by inter partes and post-grant reviews. Inter partes reexaminations were conducted before a panel of examiners, and then subject to review by the PTAB in an appeal capacity. Here, Cisco and the Director of the USPTO sought rehearing of a decision that extended the Arthrex doctrine to inter partes reexaminations.
Continue Reading Arthrex and Reexamination

Image Processing Technologies LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. et al., Appeal Nos. 2018-2156, 2019-1408, 2019-1485 (Fed. Cir. March 2, 2020).

The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s decisions against Image Processing’s U.S. Patent No. 8,983,134 in IPR2017-00353 and IPR2017-01218. The vacatur and remand was based upon the Federal Circuit’s earlier Arthrex decision, which held that the PTAB judges were improperly appointed under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Arthrex decision from October 2019 is proving to be quite controversial, and the USPTO is seeking an opportunity to have the doctrine reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Continue Reading U.S. Government in Search of Arthrex Reversal

Laura Peter, Deputy Director, Patent and Trademark Office v. NantKwest, Inc., No. 18-801 (December 11, 2019)

Today, the Supreme Court overruled a recent interpretation of 35 USC §145 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which permits the USPTO to recover expenses against applicants who filed civil actions against the USPTO. Section 145 allows unsuccessful parties at the USPTO to file a district court action for review of a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instead of going directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Traditionally, the statute has been interpreted to permit the USPTO to recover expenses such as copying costs and expert fees.


Continue Reading The American Rule Is Still the Rule

In an inter-partes review proceeding (IPR), a challenger can rely only on patents and printed publications to challenge the validity of a patent claim. In contrast, in a post grant review (PGR) proceeding, a challenger can rely on any ground related to patentability, including prior sale, to challenge a patent claim.  In particular, 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) bars a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds That AIA On-Sale Bar Applied to Secret Sales

A number of significant changes occurred in 2018 at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). To begin with, in February 2018, a new USPTO Director took office.  Director Andrew Iancu, a former patent litigator with law firm experience, appears to have brought a different perspective than that of his corporate predecessors – Michel Lee (Google) and David Kappos (IBM) – to the job at the helm of the USPTO.  In his Senate confirmation hearings, Iancu made it clear that he felt that better balance was needed in the administrative review of issued patents by the USPTO under the America Invents Act (AIA).   He pledged to assess “improvements in the AIA trial standards and processes.”  Iancu identified “institution decisions, claim construction, the amendment process, and the conduct of hearings” as areas that warranted study.  In fact, Director Iancu did a lot more than study these aspects of practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in 2018.
Continue Reading Year in Review: Changes in PTAB Practice in 2018

In a final rule published in the Federal Register on October 11, 2018, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) took a remarkable step of acknowledging unfairness in the way its Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has been conducting trials for the past six years. The rule change will apply to all of the

The 2011 America Invents Act (AIA) provided a variety of new ways to administratively challenge patents, including the now widely used inter partes review (“IPR”) procedure.  In two recent appeals of IPR decisions, Genentech has challenged the constitutionality of IPR proceedings when applied to patents that were already issued as of the date that the AIA was enacted.

Genentech has filed two appeals to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) involving decisions by the U. S. Patent Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) invalidating certain patent rights issued to Genentech on immunotherapy biologics. (Federal Circuit Docket Nos. 18-1933 and 18-1959.)  These patents have been asserted against a number of competitors seeking to market biosimilar products to Genentech’s Avastin® and Herceptin® antibody therapeutics.

The appeals stem from two IPR Petitions filed by Hospira, IPR2016-01771 and IPR2016-01837, that challenged claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,622,115 and 7,807,799, respectively. The ’115 Patent issued in November 2009 and the ’799 Patent issued in October, 2010 – both issuance dates being well before the 2011 enactment of the AIA.  The PTAB initiated trials on both patents and ultimately found all of the challenged claims to be invalid over the prior art presented by Hospira.

Genentech’s briefs assert “the retroactive application of inter partes review to a patent issued before that procedure existed is unconstitutional, a taking without just compensation and a denial of due process,” in violation of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.

The Federal Circuit has now certified Genentech’s constitutional challenges to the U.S. Attorney General, who has been directed to inform the Court whether the United States intends to intervene in the appeals within 30 days.

Genentech’s position may seem like a “Hail Mary pass” effort to save its patents, especially in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, No. 16-712, 138 S. Ct. 1365 (2018) (“Oil States”), where the Court rejected the patent owner’s argument that revoking patent claims as a result of an IPR proceeding is unconstitutional under Article III and the Seventh Amendment.

In the Oil States case, the Court held that the decision to grant a patent is a matter involving public rights and, hence, a challenge to a patent’s validity need not be heard exclusively in an Article III federal court and does not require a jury trial.  (For our detailed analysis of the Oil States decision, click here.)

However, Genentech’s arguments are based on the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on taking private property for public use without just compensation by a process that did not exist when the property rights were granted. The author of the Oil States decision, Justice Clarence Thomas, emphasized the narrowness of the holding in the Oil States case and made it clear that the case addresses “only the precise constitutional challenges . . . raised here.” Oil States at 1369.
Continue Reading Attorney General’s Office May Weigh In on Constitutionality of IPRs involving Pre-AIA Patents

In an inter partes review proceeding, a challenger cannot raise patent-eligibility as a ground of invalidity.  Rather, the invalidity grounds are limited to lack of novelty and obviousness.  Notwithstanding, in construing claim terms, the PTAB can decide not to give patentable weight to certain claim limitations that are not patent-eligible. In Praxair Distribution., Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP Ltd., No. 2016-2616, 2016-2656 (Fed. Cir. May 16, 2018) the PTAB had employed the so-called “printed matter doctrine” not to give patentable weight to certain limitations as merely “providing information”  and the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s claim construction.

Mallinckrodt is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,846,112, which is directed to methods of distributing nitric oxide gas cylinders for pharmaceutical applications.

Claim 1 recites a method of providing pharmaceutically acceptable nitric oxide gas, which includes obtaining a cylinder containing compressed nitric oxide gas, supplying the cylinder to a medical provider who is responsible for treating neonates who have hypoxic respiratory failure, including some who do not have left ventricular dysfunction. Claim 1 further includes the step of providing to the medical provider “(i) information that a recommended dose of inhaled nitric oxide gas for treatment of neonates with hypoxic respiratory failure is 20 ppm nitric oxide and (ii) information that, in patients with preexisting left ventricular dysfunction, inhaled nitric oxide may increase pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), leading to pulmonary edema, the information of (ii) being sufficient to cause a medical provider considering inhaled nitric oxide treatment for a plurality of neonatal patients who (a) are suffering from a condition for which inhaled nitric oxide is indicated, and (b) have pre-existing left ventricular dysfunction, to elect to avoid treating one or more of the plurality of patients with inhaled nitric oxide in order to avoid putting the one or more patients at risk of pulmonary edema.”

Independent claim 7 includes a “recommendation that, if pulmonary edema occurs in a patient who has pre-existing [LVD] and is treated with inhaled nitric oxide, the treatment with inhaled nitric oxide should be discontinued” (the “recommendation” limitation). Claim 9 depends on claim 7 and further comprises the following steps: performing at least one diagnostic process to identify a neonatal patient who has hypoxic respiratory failure and is a candidate for inhaled nitric oxide treatment; determining prior to treatment with inhaled nitric oxide that the neonatal patient has pre-existing left ventricular dysfunction; treating the neonatal patient with 20 ppm inhaled nitric oxide, whereupon the neonatal patient experiences pulmonary edema; and in accordance with the recommendation of [claim 7], discontinuing the treatment with inhaled nitric oxide due to the neonatal patient’s pulmonary edema. Id.

The Board applied the printed matter doctrine to interpret the providing information, evaluating, and recommendation claim limitations “to be either printed matter or purely mental steps not entitled to patentable weight, as those limitations lacked a functional relationship to the other claim limitations except in claim 9.” In particular, the PTAB was not persuaded by Mallinckrodt’s argument that the recitation of “a pharmaceutically acceptable nitric oxide gas” in the preamble of the claims would require considering information provided in the label of the supplied product.  Rather, the PTAB construed this limitation as simply “nitric oxide gas that is suitable for pharmaceutical use.”
Continue Reading CAFC Affirms PTAB’s Decision That Printed Matter Doctrine Can Be Used In Claim Construction

On May 23, 2018, in XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, L.C., CAFC held that its affirmance of PTAB’s invalidity decision regarding certain claims of a patent owned by XY in a separate appeal involving a different defendant must be given “immediate issue preclusive effect” with respect to the same claims in the present