Author:

While the PTO Director has Discretion to Institute an IPR, the Board Must Review All Petitioned Claims Upon Institution

While the PTO Director has Discretion to Institute an IPR, the Board Must Review All Petitioned Claims Upon Institution

The U.S. Supreme Court in SAS Institute v. Iancu held that when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or “the Board”) institutes an inter partes review (IPR), it must decide the patentability of all claims challenged in the original petition. Here, in a case with wide-reaching implications, the questions centered on the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director’s discretion and subsequent control of an IPR. In the underlying case, SAS filed a petition for IPR alleging that all 16 claims of a particular patent were unpatentable. The Board instituted review on nine of the challenged claims and denied review on the rest, eventually finding eight of the instituted claims unpatentable in a final written decision. The Federal Circuit rejected SAS’s argument on appeal that 35 U. S. C. §318(a) required that the Board decide the patentability of all 16 claims challenged in the petition. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch, reversed the Federal Circuit, striking down partial IPR decisions. The Supreme Court held that the plain text of §318(a) conclusively answers the question presented. The section directs that “[i]f an inter partes review is instituted and not dismissed under this chapter, the [Board]...

The USPTO Under Recently Appointed Director Andrei Iancu Will Promote Innovation and Increase Reliability in Issued Patents

The USPTO Under Recently Appointed Director Andrei Iancu Will Promote Innovation and Increase Reliability in Issued Patents

Speaking to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on April 11, 2018, recently sworn-in USPTO Director Andrei Iancu gave an impassioned speech about his vision for the patent system. Director Iancu outlined challenges facing the USPTO and goals the agency aspires to achieve, focusing on two main objectives: (1) creating a new pro-innovation, pro-IP dialogue, and (2) increasing the reliability of the USPTO granting patents. Stakeholders should take note of the Director’s objectives and should anticipate policy changes that further strengthen the patent system. Creating a new pro-innovation, pro-IP dialogue One thing is clear from Director Iancu’s remarks: the USPTO under his leadership will strive to help the inventor and incentivize innovation. Consistent with this goal, the USPTO will “create a new narrative that defines the patent system by the brilliance of inventors, the excitement of invention, and the incredible benefits they bring to society.” “And it is these benefits,” Director Iancu continued, “that must drive our patent policies.” Much of the narrative of the patent system in recent memory has focused on curbing abuses of non-practicing entities sometimes referred to as “patent trolls.” And Director Iancu’s remarks suggest that the USPTO will actively try to change that narrative. Iancu explained...

Method of Measuring Body Temperature Hits the Mark Under Alice Analysis

Method of Measuring Body Temperature Hits the Mark Under Alice Analysis

In Exergen Corp. v. Kaz USA, the Federal Circuit held that patents directed to a “body temperature detector” and related methods were eligible under § 101. The patents at issue disclose a body temperature detector that calculates a person’s core temperature by detecting the temperature of the forehead directly above the superficial temporal artery, and applying a constant coefficient to the skin and ambient temperature readings. After the jury found the claims infringed and not invalid, the district court denied judgment as a matter of law that the claims were directed to ineligible subject matter. The Federal Circuit affirmed the § 101 holding. Under the Alice test, the court first determines whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. If so, the court then examines the elements of the claims to determine whether the combination contains an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Unsurprisingly, the Federal Circuit found the claims abstract at step one. The parties, however, disputed whether the additional claimed steps “beyond calculating the temperature” added an inventive concept sufficient to confer patent eligibility. As an initial matter, the Federal Circuit gave “clear error deference” to the district court’s...

TC Heartland Changed Controlling Law for Waiver of the Right to Object to Venue Under Rule 12

TC Heartland Changed Controlling Law for Waiver of the Right to Object to Venue Under Rule 12

The Federal Circuit recently decided In re Micron, in which the panel resolved a district court split, holding that TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods changed controlling law for the purposes of Rule 12 waiver. Micron petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus to set aside the district court’s denial of Micron’s post-TC Heartland motion to dismiss or to transfer the case for improper venue. The district court held that Micron had waived its venue objection under Rule 12(g)(2) and (h)(1)(A) by failing to object to venue in its initial motion to dismiss, concluding that TC Heartland was not a change of law that would make waiver inappropriate. The Federal Circuit granted the petition for mandamus, vacated the district court order, and remanded. A defendant objecting to venue may file a motion to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3). The ability to file a Rule 12(b)(3) motion, however, is constrained by Rule 12(h)(1)(A), which says a venue defense under Rule 12 is waived if it is omitted from an earlier filed motion to dismiss under Rule 12, in which the venue defense was “available to the defendant.” The question before the Federal Circuit was “whether the [TC Heartland] venue...

Rule 37’s “Meet and Confer” Requirement Gaining Steam in Discovery Disputes

Rule 37’s “Meet and Confer” Requirement Gaining Steam in Discovery Disputes

Merz N. Am., Inc. v. Cytophyl, Inc. is the latest federal district court decision analyzing the meet and confer requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. As discovery issues continue to dominate the first 12 to 18 months of civil litigation (depending on the jurisdiction), litigators should review recent decisions, at least one of which denied a discovery motion for failure to adequately meet and confer. Under Rule 37(a)(1), a party moving to compel discovery must certify that it “has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make . . . discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” Because neither the Rule nor the advisory notes accompanying it specify which methods of conferring are appropriate, individual courts have interpreted Rule 37’s meet and confer requirement through local rules and judicial decisions. For example, the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Texas require, “at a minimum, a personal conference, by telephone or in person, between an attorney for the movant and an attorney for the non-movant.” Further, while some courts have addressed the merits of a motion to compel despite a failure to adequately meet and confer, see,...