Tag Archives: PTAB

Thorn in USPTO’s Side: Judge Fitzpatrick’s Whistleblower Victory

Patent, , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

In a significant ruling, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) granted corrective action to PTAB Administrative Patent Judge (APJ) Michael Fitzpatrick in his whistleblower retaliation case against the USPTO associated with his complaints about PTAB panel expansion (i.e., 'panel stacking').  The decision issued back in 2023, but has only just now been published following a settlement between Fitzpatrick and the USPTO.  This post will delve into the details of Fitzpatrick's claims, the MSPB's reasoning, and the implications of this decision for patent practitioners and the USPTO. 

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Emphasizing Context in Claim Construction

Patent, , , , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

In Neonode Smartphone LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., the Federal Circuit has reversed Judge Albright's holding that claims of Neonode's US8095879 are invalid as indefinite.  No. 2023-2304 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 20, 2024) (non-precedential). The appellate panel concluded that Albright failed to properly consider the full context of the intrinsic record, particularly the prosecution history.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Federal Circuit Slices the Bologna Thin with IPR Rehearing Waiver Decision

Patent, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

Voice Tech Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2022-2163 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2024)

Unified Patents is paid by its members to fight against non-practicing entity (NPE) patent assertions -- often by challenge patent validity via inter partes review.  In this case, Unified challenged Voice Tech's U.S. Patent No. 10,491,679 which covers technology for controlling a computer via a mobile device using voice commands. At the conclusion of the IPR, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) sided with Unified - finding all challenged claims (1-8) of the '679 patent unpatentable as obvious over the combination of two prior art references, Wong and Beauregard.  The PTAB also denied Voice Tech's request for rehearing. On appeal, the patentee won a minor battle on waiver, but ultimately lost on the merits.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

A few initial thoughts on Loper Bright and the end of Chevron Deference

Patent, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

This is just a first look at how overturning Chevron may impact patent practice. 

In the past, both the USPTO and patent attorneys have largely ignored the larger scope of administrative law, but in recent years USPTO operations have been under tighter control from the White House, and courts have increasingly asked whether the agency is following the rules.  Administrative patent law was truly launched with  the American Invents Act of 2011 and the resulting administrative patent trials by the PTAB -- resulting in hundreds of appeals arguing that the USPTO's procedural approach is an abuse of administrative power.  Importantly, the Supreme Court in Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Com. for Intell. Prop., 579 U.S. 261 (2016) provided the patent office with Chevron deference for its determinations regarding AIA trials, including issues such as its approach to claim construction.  But Chevron has now been overruled, and many are wanting the Federal Circuit to revisit the USPTO approach.

Although I expect that the outcome

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Sitting By Designation, Judge Albright Pens First Federal Circuit Opinion Vacating PTAB Decision for Failing to Consider Petitioner’s Reply Brief Claim Construction Arguments

Patent, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

The Federal Circuit's 2023 decision in Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. marked an important change in inter partes review procedure, ensuring petitioners have an opportunity to respond patentee's newly proposed arguments, with the hope of discouraging patent owners from holding-back ("sandbagging") at the institution stage.  Case-in-point is the Federal Circuit's recent Apple v. Omni MedSci decision authored by Judge Alan D. Albright sitting by designation.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Design Patent Examination Updates

Patent, , , , , ,

Ten years ago - 2014 - the Supreme Court decided Alice Corp v. CLS Bank, holding that - yes indeed - the expansive language of Mayo v. Prometheus (2012) applies equally to software and technology patents.   A few weeks later, the USPTO began a dramatic transformation - pulling back notices of allowance and issuing thousands of supplemental office actions. The Federal Circuit's May 2024 en banc decision in LKQ v. GM is perhaps as dramatic a change for the design patent arena as Alice was for utility patents.  The old Rosen-Durling test made it almost impossible to reject a design patent as obvious except for extreme cases involving either direct copying or extremely broad claims.  The key difficulty was that precedent required the obviousness inquiry to begin with a single prior art reference that is "basically the same" as the claimed design - a roughly 1-to-1 relationship.  Further, any secondary references had to be ‘so related’ to the primary reference that features in one would suggest application of those features to the other." In LKQ, the court found those requirements "improperly rigid” under principles of KSR which require a flexible obviousness inquiry.  The overall effect is to make it easier to find a design patent obvious.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Codifying Discretionary Denial of IPR Petitions

Patent, , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

The USPTO recently released yet another Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) -- this one focusing on codification of IPR/PGR rules associated with non-merits based "discretionary denials" of institution as well as termination due to settlement.  This is a controversial area because of that word 'discretion.'  Unrestricted discretion by government officials is concerning because of the potential for arbitrary or biased decisions, lacking transparency and accountability.  In that frame, these rules are beneficial because they structure and limit discretion - hopefully making the outcomes more predictable and justifiable.  A key note - the rules here focus primarily on procedure (separate briefing for discretionary denials) and substantive issues relating to parallel, serial, and cumulative petitions. Although this is an important step, they do not address discretionary denials associated with parallel litigation (or other outside factors) under Fintiv and subsequent director guidance. This is likely the most controversial area of discretionary denials that is being left out for now.

Congress clearly intended the USPTO to have substantial discretion

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

New USPTO Director Review Rules

Patent, , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

The USPTO has published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to formalize the process for Director Review of PTAB decisions. These proposed rules come in response to the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021), which underscored the necessity for the USPTO Director to have the ability to review PTAB decisions to comply with the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Of course, the USPTO has been operating under an interim procedure for Director Review that began soon after Arthrex, but has been updated a couple of times.  The NPRM closely follows the most recent version of the interim rules.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Issue its “Mandate and Opinion”

Patent, , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

The Federal Circuit regularly affirms PTAB judgments without issuing any explanatory opinion to justify the result.  Although not found in the Rules of Appellate procedure, the court has created its own local rule allowing itself to "enter a judgment of affirmance without opinion."  In a 2017 paper, I argued that these no-opinion affirmances violated both the spirit and letter of 35 U.S.C. 144, which requires the court to issue a "mandate and opinion" in cases appealed from the USPTO.  Since that time, the Federal Circuit has continued its practice, issuing hundreds of no-opinion judgments.  Throughout this time, dozens of losing parties have petitioned for en banc rehearing with the Federal Circuit or certiorari to the Supreme Court.  Up to now, both courts have remained silent and have refused to address the issue.

A new pending petition raises the issue once again. Virentem Ventures v. Google (Supreme Court 2023).  Virentem sued Google for patent infringement, and Google responded with a set of Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions.  The PTAB eventually sided with Google and invalidated the claims of all seven challenged patents.  Virentem appealed; but the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's judgement without opinion under its local Rule 36.

The new petition to the Supreme Court asks four related questions:

  1. Does the Federal Circuit’s use of Rule 36 to affirm without opinion PTAB invalidity determinations that are challenged based on pure questions of law violate a patentee’s due process rights through arbitrary or disparately applied results?
  2. Did the Federal Circuit’s use of Rule 36 to affirm without opinion PTAB invalidity determinations of Virentem’s patents violate its due process rights?
  3. Did the PTAB’s adoption, and Federal Circuit’s summary affirmance, of broad constructions of Time Scale Modification and other claim terms over Virentem’s explicit narrowing definitions, violate the Federal Circuit’s own law and precedents on claim construction in such circumstances?
  4. Does the Federal Circuit’s use of Rule 36 to affirm without opinion decisions from the PTAB violate the requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 144 that the Federal Circuit “shall issue to the Director its mandate and opinion”?

The Virentem patents relate to time-scale modification -- the speeding-up or slowing-down of media.  You may remember Alvin, Simon, and Theodore -- the Chipmunks.  That unintelligible high pitch arguably is not really time-scale modification because it is such a failure.  Rather, TSM modern impliedly requires maintaining pitch and intelligibility.  In this case though, the PTAB broadly interpreted the term to include any system that speeds-up or slows-down media.  With that broad interpretation, the tribunal then was able to find prior art rendering the claims obvious.   Virentem argued that its patents would be seen as valid under the narrower construction.  The PTAB's response: If you wanted that limitation in the claim, you should have added it to the claim.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.