United States: U.S. Patent And Trademark Office Announces Proposed Changes To AIA Proceedings

On August 19, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("Office") presented proposed amendments to the rules governing trial practice for inter partes review, post-grant review, transitional post-grant review for covered business method patents, and derivation proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ("AIA") in a Federal Register Notice ("Notice").1 The proposed rule amendments address a variety of subjects from claim construction to new Rule 11-type certification requirements. Notably, the proposed rule amendments would create a more robust preliminary stage, where patent owners can present expert testimony and petitioners can request to file replies before the Office's institution decision.

Along with the proposed rule amendments, the Office provided extensive responses to comments from the public. In its responses, the Office concluded that its current rules generally provide a workable framework to administer AIA proceedings. The Office declined to adopt rigid rules that would limit the discretion of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") to make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

Taken together, the proposed rule amendments and responses to comments suggest that the Office has attempted to propose new rules that do not overly favor either petitioners or patent owners, while rejecting calls to reinvent the program.

THE HISTORY BEHIND THE NOTICE

In 2014, the Office solicited feedback on AIA proceedings. The Office received comments from bar associations, corporations, law firms, and individuals, and addressed those comments in two rounds of rule changes. The first round of changes in May 2015 made some "quick fixes," which are now final. In yesterday's Notice, the Office addressed the remaining comments and opened a 60-day window for additional comments.

A MORE ROBUST PRELIMINARY STAGE

The current rules define the "preliminary proceeding" as beginning "with the filing of a petition for instituting a trial" and ending "with a written decision as to whether a trial will be instituted." 37 C.F.R. § 42.2. Currently, this stage permits only the petitioner to submit expert testimony before the Board's institution decision.

The proposed rule amendments would allow the patent owner to submit expert testimony with its preliminary response as well. Although this new rule would favor patent owners, the Office further proposed: (1) resolving any material factual dispute in favor of the petitioner for the purposes of institution and (2) allowing the petitioner to seek leave to file a reply to a preliminary response supported by a declaration. The Office also appeared to open the door to the possible cross-examination of the patent owner's expert before institution.

If the Office's proposed rule amendments are adopted, the right of the patent owner to submit expert testimony with its preliminary response, coupled with the right of the petitioner to request a reply and even cross-examine the patent owner's expert—all before institution—suggest a more robust preliminary stage.

Adding further weight to the preliminary stage is the Office's proposal to change the page limits of the petition and preliminary response from 60 pages to 14,000 words for inter partes review. (A similar change is proposed for post-grant review.) Such a change would permit the use of more figures and generally longer, more detailed presentations by both parties at the preliminary stage.

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION: "OPT IN" TO PHILLIPS?

The issue of the appropriate standard for claim construction in AIA proceedings has been a hot topic this summer, including the Federal Circuit's opinion in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC (concluding that Congress implicitly approved broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting AIA).2 In yesterday's Notice, the Office held firm to its broadest reasonable interpretation standard for patent claims that remain unexpired through trial. For patents that will expire before the anticipated end of the AIA proceeding, the Office proposed that the claim construction standard should be that of Phillips v. AWH Corp.,3 because the claims cannot be amended. Interestingly, the Office invited comments on any workable solution for allowing a patent owner to "opt in" to the Phillips standard by foregoing the right to amend. The Office also invited comments on whether it should consider briefing submitted after the petition is filed, but before the preliminary response, regarding what standard should be applied. These invitations suggest that, once again, the preliminary stage could see more advocacy as the parties jostle to define the appropriate claim construction standard.

MOTIONS TO AMEND: STAYING THE COURSE

Another hot AIA topic this summer has been the patent owner's right to amend. Such motions have been difficult so far, in part because the Board has required that the patent owner establish the patentability of the amended claims over both the "prior art of record" and "prior art known to the patent owner." Although motions to amend have rarely been granted, the Office refused to change the standards governing such motions in its Notice.

The Office, however, clarified the scope of the prior art that amended claims must overcome, by reference to the Board's decision in MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc., IPR2015- 00040, slip op. at 1–3 (P.T.A.B. July 15, 2015) (Paper 42). As set forth in MasterImage 3D, the "prior art of record" would encompass: (a) material art in the prosecution history of the patent; (b) material art of record in the concurrent proceeding, including art on which the Board did not institute review; and (c) material art of record in any other proceeding before the Office involving the patent. As further indicated in MasterImage 3D, the "prior art known to the patent owner" would consist of prior art that the patent owner makes of record in the current proceeding pursuant to its duty of candor and good faith. The Office also clarified that the Board "must consider" all motions to amend, and thus there exists no burden of persuasion to file such a motion. In short, the Notice does not depart from the Office's current course as to motions to amend in an AIA proceeding.

SERIAL PETITIONS: NO RIGID "ONE AND DONE" RULE

The success of inter partes reviews has led to situations where a patent owner faces serial petitions—sometimes by the same petitioner. In the Notice, the Office sought to address circumstances under which a petition for an AIA proceeding should be rejected because the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments were previously presented to the Office in an earlier-filed petition. The Office refused to adopt a rigid "one and done" rule, in which duplicative petitions are denied. Rather, the Office noted that the current rules and case law provide the Board with broad discretion to take all factors into account and to balance the interests of one or more petitioners, who seek to present new prior art and arguments in later-filed petitions, against the patent owner's interest in preventing harassment that takes the form of repetitive, serial petitions that challenge the same patent claims. The Office pointed to decisions in which the Board has used its broad discretion to deny petitions that raised challenges based on the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments as a prior petition, especially where the same petitioner filed the later petition.

THE BOARD'S BROAD DISCRETION

In the Notice, the Office also addressed several other practices governing AIA proceedings. As with the discussion of serial petitions above, the Office declined to adopt rigid rules that would limit the Board's discretion.

  • Additional discovery. The proposed rule amendments did not include any change to the standards on discovery, which is currently governed by Garmin Int'l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, IPR2012-00001, slip op. at 6–7 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2013) (Paper 26). The Office indicated that the Board would continue to apply the Garmin factors. The Office also declined to change the rules regarding the discovery of evidence of non-obviousness in the possession of the petitioner, finding that the Garmin factors provided sufficient guidance as to how to handle requests for additional discovery.
  • Real Party-in-Interest. The Office proposed to permit a patent owner to raise a real party-in-interest or privity challenge at any time during a trial proceeding. But with respect to a late challenge that reasonably could have been raised earlier in the proceeding, the Office proposed to consider the impact of such a delay on a case-by-case basis, taking into account whether the delay is unwarranted or prejudicial. The Office also clarified that the burden of proof on the issue of standing rests with the petitioner. With respect to other real party-in-interest or privity issues raised by the comments, the Office declined to make any changes.
  • Multiple Proceedings. The Office declined to change its practices and rules governing the management of multiple proceedings (e.g., an AIA trial, reexamination proceeding, or reissue proceeding) involving the same patents, including whether these proceedings should be coordinated, stayed, transferred, consolidated, or terminated in favor of another. The Office instead opted for giving the Board discretion in making these determinations on a case-by-case basis.
  • Oral Hearing. The Office appeared to invite more live testimony at the hearing, and clarified that such testimony would become part of the record. The Office also confirmed that it would continue its practice of considering requests for live testimony on a case-by-case basis, and that the format of the live testimony would be left to the discretion of the Board.
  • Word Counts/Page Limits. The Office proposed to change the limits on the length of the petition and preliminary response (as discussed above), as well as for the patent owner's response and petitioner's reply brief. Specifically, the Office proposed using word counts instead of page limits. As a result, the Office also proposed allowing a petitioner to present attorney argument in the form of claim charts. Page limits would continue to be used for all other briefs.
  • Pilot Program. The Office also proposed seeking comments on a pilot program in which one administrative patent judge would be designated to determine whether to institute a proceeding and two additional judges would be assigned if trial is instituted.
  • Rule 11 Certification. The Office proposed requiring a Rule 11-type certification for all papers filed with the Board, including a provision for sanctions for noncompliance. The proposed rules implement a more explicit duty of candor and good faith for all persons practicing before the Board. In her blog post, Office Director Michelle Lee noted that this Rule 11-like sanction would "give the [Office] a more robust means with which to police misconduct."4

CONCLUSION

The Office's Notice presents proposed rule amendments and responses to comments for AIA proceedings, and opens a 60-day window for additional comments by the public. Interested parties may offer submissions by October 19, 2015. Most of the proposed changes would affect both sides, such as the word count limits and Rule 11 certification. And even proposed modifications that seem to favor one party are tempered with protections for the other party. For example, although the Office proposed allowing a patent owner to submit expert testimony with its preliminary response, it also provided the petitioner with the ability to request a reply to the preliminary response. Apart from such proposed rule amendments, the Office found that many of its current rules provide a workable framework to administer AIA proceedings and declined to adopt rigid rules that would limit the Board's discretion to make decisions on a case-by-case basis. In short, the Office considers the AIA proceedings to be highly successful, and is thus reluctant to revamp them at this stage.

Footnotes

1 Available at https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-20227.pdf.

2 No. 2014-1301, 2015 WL 4097949 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2015).

3 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).

4 Available at http://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/ptab_update_proposed_changes_to.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Haug Partners
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Haug Partners
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions