Granted In 19 Hours

Patent examiners have an extremely hard job.  They’re given a patent application—which could be anywhere from a page long up to hundreds of pages, with patent claims ranging from a…

Read more →

Latest Blog Post

Losing by Winning: BTG v. Amneal

Today, the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in the BTG v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals case.  In addition to standard disputes over whether the patent-in-suit was obvious and whether it was infringed, this case presents a novel issue regarding estoppel for IPR petitioners.

Essentially, the question is whether a petitioner who successfully challenges a claim at the PTAB is barred from arguing invalidity of that claim in district court.  BTG—and the USPTO, in an amicus brief—argues that if you win at the USPTO, you thereby have to lose at district court, at least until all rehearings and appeals are exhausted.

Appeals are a process that can take years—years during which you might be barred from putting your product on the market, even though the USPTO already said that there was no valid patent blocking your path.  

Amneal (and an amicus brief from the Association for Affordable Medicine) point out that this result is counter-intuitive—which the USPTO admits in its own brief—and that normal principles of estoppel prevent making arguments contrary to previous arguments or results, rather than preventing a prevailing party from adopting the prevailing position it had already taken.

It’s unclear how the USPTO brief in this case, insisting that a petitioner who wins at the PTAB cannot argue that the patent was invalidated at the PTAB, meshes with the USPTO’s stated position that getting the same results at the district court and the PTAB is an important goal.  If the USPTO Director truly believes that the statute requires this counter-intuitive result, perhaps he could push for a legislative fix that would make sure that a win at the PTAB doesn’t hurt petitioners.

Recent posts

As USPTO Oversight Hearing Approaches, Some Questions On Eligibility

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Andrei Iancu will testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Intellectual Property on Wednesday as the sole witness in a USPTO oversight hearing.  The chair of the Subcommittee, Sen. Tillis (R-NC), and the ranking member, Sen. Coons (D-DE), have both expressed an active interest…

Guest Post: Should the Federal Circuit Care about Limits to the ITC’s Agency Authority? A Recap of the Comcast v. ITC Oral Argument

Charles Duan is Director of Technology & Innovation Policy for the R Street Institute.  We are pleased to republish this post, first published on the ITC Policy Blog. This morning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard an oral argument in the case Comcast v. International Trade Commission. Though the case itself involves niche matters of patent law, the argument revealed to me a concerning lack…

No More Bites At The Apple In The Eastern District

Last week, it was widely reported that Apple plans to close its retail stores in the Eastern District of Texas in order to avoid facing patent lawsuits in the district.  Given that a single patent lawsuit can easily cost just as much as opening an Apple store (estimated at $8-10 million per store), even if…

Blackbird Grounded—For Now

Almost two years ago, I wrote about a new non-practicing entity (NPE)—Blackbird Technologies.  It claimed to be helping innovators, but the main innovation it helped promote was its own—having the lawyers own the patents on which Blackbird was suing. When I first wrote about Blackbird, it had just sued Cloudflare over the ‘335 patent, which…